InstCombine didn't perform (sext bool X) * (sext bool X) --> zext (and X, X) which can result in just (zext X). The patch adds regression tests to check this transformation and adds a check for equality of mul's operands for that case.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D104193
InstCombine didn't perform (sext bool X) * (sext bool X) --> zext (and X, X) which can result in just (zext X). The patch adds regression tests to check this transformation and adds a check for equality of mul's operands for that case.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D104193
This can be seen as a follow up to commit 0ee439b705,
that changed the second argument of __powidf2, __powisf2 and
__powitf2 in compiler-rt from si_int to int. That was to align with
how those runtimes are defined in libgcc.
One thing that seem to have been missing in that patch was to make
sure that the rest of LLVM also handle that the argument now depends
on the size of int (not using the si_int machine mode for 32-bit).
When using __builtin_powi for a target with 16-bit int clang crashed.
And when emitting libcalls to those rtlib functions, typically when
lowering @llvm.powi), the backend would always prepare the exponent
argument as an i32 which caused miscompiles when the rtlib was
compiled with 16-bit int.
The solution used here is to use an overloaded type for the second
argument in @llvm.powi. This way clang can use the "correct" type
when lowering __builtin_powi, and then later when emitting the libcall
it is assumed that the type used in @llvm.powi matches the rtlib
function.
One thing that needed some extra attention was that when vectorizing
calls several passes did not support that several arguments could
be overloaded in the intrinsics. This patch allows overload of a
scalar operand by adding hasVectorInstrinsicOverloadedScalarOpd, with
an entry for powi.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D99439
InstCombine didn't perform the transformations when fmul's operands were
the same instruction because it required to have one use for each of them
which is false in the case. This patch fixes this + adds tests for them
and introduces a new function isOnlyUserOfAnyOperand to check these cases
in a single place.
This patch is a result of discussion in D102574.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D102698
This extends b40fde062c for the especially non-standard
powi pattern. We want to avoid being completely wrong
on the negation-of-int-min corner case, so I'm adding
an extra FMF check for 'ninf' assuming that gives us
the flexibility to handle that possibility.
https://llvm.org/PR49147
Follow-up to:
D96648 / b40fde062
...for the special-case base calls.
From the earlier commit:
This is unusual in the general (non-reciprocal) case because we need
an extra instruction, but that should be better for general FP
reassociation and codegen. We conservatively check for "arcp" FMF
here as we do with existing fdiv folds, but it is not strictly
necessary to have that.
This is unusual in the general (non-reciprocal) case because we need
an extra instruction, but that should be better for general FP
reassociation and codegen. We conservatively check for "arcp" FMF
here as we do with existing fdiv folds, but it is not strictly
necessary to have that.
This is part of solving:
https://llvm.org/PR49147
(The powi variant potentially has a different constraint.)
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D96648
This exposes the helper for other power-of-2 instcombine folds that I'm intending to add vector support to.
The helper only operated on power-of-2 constants so getExactLogBase2 is a more accurate name.
These transforms will now be performed irrespective of the number of uses for the expression "1.0/sqrt(X)":
1.0/sqrt(X) * X => X/sqrt(X)
X * 1.0/sqrt(X) => X/sqrt(X)
We already handle more general cases, and we are intentionally not creating extra (and likely expensive)
fdiv ops in IR. This pattern is the exception to the rule because we always expect the Backend to reduce
X/sqrt(X) to sqrt(X), if it has the necessary (reassoc) fast-math-flags.
Ref: DagCombiner optimizes the X/sqrt(X) to sqrt(X).
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D86726
These are not correctness issues.
In visitUDivOperand(), if the (potential) divisor is undef, then udiv is
already UB, so it is not incorrect to keep undef as shift amount.
But, that is suboptimal.
We could instead simply drop that select, picking the other operand.
Afterwards, getLogBase2() could assert that there is no undef in divisor.
While x*undef is undef, shift-by-undef is poison,
which we must avoid introducing.
Also log2(iN undef) is *NOT* iN undef, because log2(iN undef) u< N.
See https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=47133
Negator knows how to do this, but the one-use reasoning is getting
a bit muddy here, we don't really want to increase instruction count,
so we need to both lie that "IsNegation" and have an one-use check
on the outermost LHS value.
Multiplication is commutative, and either of operands can be negative,
so if the RHS is a negated power-of-two, we should try to make it
true power-of-two (which will allow us to turn it into a left-shift),
by trying to sink the negation down into LHS op.
But, we shouldn't re-invent the logic for sinking negation,
let's just use Negator for that.
Tests and original patch by: Simon Pilgrim @RKSimon!
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D85446
For a long time, the InstCombine pass handled target specific
intrinsics. Having target specific code in general passes was noted as
an area for improvement for a long time.
D81728 moves most target specific code out of the InstCombine pass.
Applying the target specific combinations in an extra pass would
probably result in inferior optimizations compared to the current
fixed-point iteration, therefore the InstCombine pass resorts to newly
introduced functions in the TargetTransformInfo when it encounters
unknown intrinsics.
The patch should not have any effect on generated code (under the
assumption that code never uses intrinsics from a foreign target).
This introduces three new functions:
TargetTransformInfo::instCombineIntrinsic
TargetTransformInfo::simplifyDemandedUseBitsIntrinsic
TargetTransformInfo::simplifyDemandedVectorEltsIntrinsic
A few target specific parts are left in the InstCombine folder, where
it makes sense to share code. The largest left-over part in
InstCombineCalls.cpp is the code shared between arm and aarch64.
This allows to move about 3000 lines out from InstCombine to the targets.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D81728
This is the one i'm seeing as missed optimization,
although there are likely other possibilities, as usual.
There are 4 variants of a general sdiv->udiv fold:
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/VS6
Name: v0
Pre: C0 >= 0 && C1 >= 0
%r = sdiv i8 C0, C1
=>
%r = udiv i8 C0, C1
Name: v1
Pre: C0 <= 0 && C1 >= 0
%r = sdiv i8 C0, C1
=>
%t0 = udiv i8 -C0, C1
%r = sub i8 0, %t0
Name: v2
Pre: C0 >= 0 && C1 <= 0
%r = sdiv i8 C0, C1
=>
%t0 = udiv i8 C0, -C1
%r = sub i8 0, %t0
Name: v3
Pre: C0 <= 0 && C1 <= 0
%r = sdiv i8 C0, C1
=>
%r = udiv i8 -C0, -C1
If we really don't like sdiv (more than udiv that is),
and are okay with increasing instruction count (2 new negations),
and we ensure that we don't undo the fold,
then we could just implement these..
Similar to rG40fcc42:
The base case only worked because we were relying on a
poison-unsafe select transform; if that is fixed, we
would regress on patterns like this.
The extra use tests show that the select transform can't
be applied consistently. So it may be a regression to have
an extra instruction on 1 test, but that result was not
created safely and does not happen reliably.
The base case only works because we are relying on a
poison-unsafe select transform; if that is fixed, we
would regress on patterns like this.
The extra use tests show that the select transform can't
be applied consistently. So it may be a regression to have
an extra instruction on 1 test, but that result was not
created safely and does not happen reliably.
fabs(X) * fabs(Y) --> fabs(X * Y)
fabs(X) / fabs(Y) --> fabs(X / Y)
If both operands of fmul/fdiv are positive, then the result must be positive.
There's a NAN corner-case that prevents removing the more specific fold just
above this one:
fabs(X) * fabs(X) -> X * X
That fold works even with NAN because the sign-bit result of the multiply is
not specified if X is NAN.
We can't remove that and use the more general fold that is proposed here
because once we convert to this:
fabs (X * X)
...it is not legal to simplify the 'fabs' out of that expression when X is NAN.
That's because fabs() guarantees that the sign-bit is always cleared - even
for NAN values.
So this patch has the potential to lose information, but it seems unlikely if
we do the more specific fold ahead of this one.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D82277
Summary:
getLogBase2 tries to iterate over the number of vector elements. Since
the number of elements of a scalable vector is unknown at compile time,
we must return null if the input type is scalable.
Identified by test LLVM.Transforms/InstCombine::nsw.ll
Reviewers: efriedma, fpetrogalli, kmclaughlin, spatel
Reviewed By: efriedma, fpetrogalli
Subscribers: tschuett, hiraditya, rkruppe, psnobl, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D79197
Summary:
Remove usages of asserting vector getters in Type in preparation for the
VectorType refactor. The existence of these functions complicates the
refactor while adding little value.
Reviewers: sdesmalen, rriddle, efriedma
Reviewed By: sdesmalen
Subscribers: hiraditya, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D77263
Use UnaryOperator::CreateFNeg instead.
Summary:
With the introduction of the native fneg instruction, the
fsub -0.0, %x idiom is obsolete. This patch makes LLVM
emit fneg instead of the idiom in all places.
Reviewed By: cameron.mcinally
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D75130
Rather than mixing creation of new instructions and in-place
modification here, create a new log2 intrinsic. This should be
NFC apart from worklist order changes.
Adds a replaceOperand() helper, which is like Instruction.setOperand()
but adds the old operand to the worklist. This reduces the amount of
missing or incorrect worklist management.
This only applies the helper to a relatively small subset of
setOperand() calls in InstCombine, namely those of the pattern
`I.setOperand(); return &I;`, where it is most obviously applicable.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D73803
This renames Worklist.AddDeferred() to Worklist.add() and
Worklist.Add() to Worklist.push(). The intention here is that
Worklist.add() should be the go-to method for explicit worklist
management, while the raw Worklist.push() is mostly for
InstCombine internals. I will then migrate uses of Worklist.push()
to Worklist.add() in followup changes.
As suggested by spatel on D73411 I'm also changing the remaining
method names to lowercase first character, in line with current
coding standards.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D73745
This is a special case of Z / (X / Y) => (Y * Z) / X, with X = 1.0.
The m_OneUse check is avoided because even in the case of the
multiple uses for 1.0/Y, the number of instructions remain the same
and a division is replaced by a multiplication.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D72319
As described here:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=44186
The match() code safely allows undef values, but we can't safely
propagate a vector constant that contains an undef to the new
compare instruction.
Daniil Seredkin