We want to do this for 2 reasons:
1. Value tracking does not recognize the ashr variant, so it would fail to match for cases like D39766.
2. DAGCombiner does better at producing optimal codegen when we have the cmp+sel pattern.
More detail about what happens in the backend:
1. DAGCombiner has a generic transform for all targets to convert the scalar cmp+sel variant of abs
into the shift variant. That is the opposite of this IR canonicalization.
2. DAGCombiner has a generic transform for all targets to convert the vector cmp+sel variant of abs
into either an ABS node or the shift variant. That is again the opposite of this IR canonicalization.
3. DAGCombiner has a generic transform for all targets to convert the exact shift variants produced by #1 or #2
into an ISD::ABS node. Note: It would be an efficiency improvement if we had #1 go directly to an ABS node
when that's legal/custom.
4. The pattern matching above is incomplete, so it is possible to escape the intended/optimal codegen in a
variety of ways.
a. For #2, the vector path is missing the case for setlt with a '1' constant.
b. For #3, we are missing a match for commuted versions of the shift variants.
5. Therefore, this IR canonicalization can only help get us to the optimal codegen. The version of cmp+sel
produced by this patch will be recognized in the DAG and converted to an ABS node when possible or the
shift sequence when not.
6. In the following examples with this patch applied, we may get conditional moves rather than the shift
produced by the generic DAGCombiner transforms. The conditional move is created using a target-specific
decision for any given target. Whether it is optimal or not for a particular subtarget may be up for debate.
define i32 @abs_shifty(i32 %x) {
%signbit = ashr i32 %x, 31
%add = add i32 %signbit, %x
%abs = xor i32 %signbit, %add
ret i32 %abs
}
define i32 @abs_cmpsubsel(i32 %x) {
%cmp = icmp slt i32 %x, zeroinitializer
%sub = sub i32 zeroinitializer, %x
%abs = select i1 %cmp, i32 %sub, i32 %x
ret i32 %abs
}
define <4 x i32> @abs_shifty_vec(<4 x i32> %x) {
%signbit = ashr <4 x i32> %x, <i32 31, i32 31, i32 31, i32 31>
%add = add <4 x i32> %signbit, %x
%abs = xor <4 x i32> %signbit, %add
ret <4 x i32> %abs
}
define <4 x i32> @abs_cmpsubsel_vec(<4 x i32> %x) {
%cmp = icmp slt <4 x i32> %x, zeroinitializer
%sub = sub <4 x i32> zeroinitializer, %x
%abs = select <4 x i1> %cmp, <4 x i32> %sub, <4 x i32> %x
ret <4 x i32> %abs
}
> $ ./opt -instcombine shiftyabs.ll -S | ./llc -o - -mtriple=x86_64 -mattr=avx
> abs_shifty:
> movl %edi, %eax
> negl %eax
> cmovll %edi, %eax
> retq
>
> abs_cmpsubsel:
> movl %edi, %eax
> negl %eax
> cmovll %edi, %eax
> retq
>
> abs_shifty_vec:
> vpabsd %xmm0, %xmm0
> retq
>
> abs_cmpsubsel_vec:
> vpabsd %xmm0, %xmm0
> retq
>
> $ ./opt -instcombine shiftyabs.ll -S | ./llc -o - -mtriple=aarch64
> abs_shifty:
> cmp w0, #0 // =0
> cneg w0, w0, mi
> ret
>
> abs_cmpsubsel:
> cmp w0, #0 // =0
> cneg w0, w0, mi
> ret
>
> abs_shifty_vec:
> abs v0.4s, v0.4s
> ret
>
> abs_cmpsubsel_vec:
> abs v0.4s, v0.4s
> ret
>
> $ ./opt -instcombine shiftyabs.ll -S | ./llc -o - -mtriple=powerpc64le
> abs_shifty:
> srawi 4, 3, 31
> add 3, 3, 4
> xor 3, 3, 4
> blr
>
> abs_cmpsubsel:
> srawi 4, 3, 31
> add 3, 3, 4
> xor 3, 3, 4
> blr
>
> abs_shifty_vec:
> vspltisw 3, -16
> vspltisw 4, 15
> vsubuwm 3, 4, 3
> vsraw 3, 2, 3
> vadduwm 2, 2, 3
> xxlxor 34, 34, 35
> blr
>
> abs_cmpsubsel_vec:
> vspltisw 3, -16
> vspltisw 4, 15
> vsubuwm 3, 4, 3
> vsraw 3, 2, 3
> vadduwm 2, 2, 3
> xxlxor 34, 34, 35
> blr
>
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D40984
llvm-svn: 320921
This is a preliminary step towards solving the remaining part of PR27145 - IR for isfinite():
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=27145
In order to solve that one more generally, we need to add matching for and/or of fcmp ord/uno
with a constant operand.
But while looking at those patterns, I realized we were missing a canonicalization for nonzero
constants. Rather than limiting to just folds for constants, we're adding a general value
tracking method for this based on an existing DAG helper.
By transforming everything to 0.0, we can simplify the existing code in foldLogicOfFCmps()
and pick up missing vector folds.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D37427
llvm-svn: 312591
In addition to removing chunks of duplicated code, we don't
want these to diverge. If there's a fold for one, there
should be a fold of the other via DeMorgan's Laws.
llvm-svn: 312420
We had these locals:
Value *Op0RHS = LHS->getOperand(1);
Value *Op1LHS = RHS->getOperand(0);
...so we confusingly transposed the meaning of left/right and op0/op1.
llvm-svn: 312418
This makes it easier to see that they're almost duplicates.
As with the similar icmp functions, there should be identical
folds for both logic ops because those are DeMorganized variants.
llvm-svn: 312415
A future patch will make the code look through truncates feeding the compare. So the compares might be different types but the pretruncated types might be the same.
This should be safe because we still require the same Value* to be used truncated or not in both compares. So that serves to ensure the types are the same.
llvm-svn: 312381
Previously we used the type from the LHS of the compare, but a future patch will change decomposeBitTestICmp to look through truncates so it will return a pretruncated Value* and the type needs to match that.
llvm-svn: 312380
Looks like for 'and' and 'or' we end up performing at least some of the transformations this is bocking in a round about way anyway.
For 'and sext(cmp1), sext(cmp2) we end up later turning it into 'select cmp1, sext(cmp2), 0'. Then we optimize that back to sext (and cmp1, cmp2). This is the same result we would have gotten if shouldOptimizeCast hadn't blocked it. We do something analogous for 'or'.
With this patch we allow that transformation to happen directly in foldCastedBitwiseLogic. And we now support the same thing for 'xor'. This is definitely opening up many other cases, but since we already went around it for some cases hopefully it's ok.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D36213
llvm-svn: 311508
I don't think there's any reason to have them scattered about and on all 4 operands. We already have an early check that both compares must be the same type. And within a given compare the LHS and RHS must have the same type. Beyond that I don't think there's anyway this function returns anything valid for pointer types. So let's just return early and be done with it.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D36561
llvm-svn: 311383
This recommits r310869, with the moved files and no extra changes.
Original commit message:
This addresses a fixme in InstSimplify about using decomposeBitTest. This also fixes InstSimplify to handle ugt and ult compares too.
I've modified the interface a little to return only the APInt version of the mask that InstSimplify needs. InstCombine now has a small wrapper routine to create a Constant out of it. I've also dropped the returning of 0 since InstSimplify doesn't need that. So InstCombine creates a zero constant itself.
I also had to make decomposeBitTest support vectors since InstSimplify needs that.
As InstSimplify can't use something from the Transforms library, I've moved the CmpInstAnalysis code to the Analysis library.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D36593
llvm-svn: 310889
Failed to add the two files that moved. And then added an extra change I didn't mean to while trying to fix that. Reverting everything.
llvm-svn: 310873
This addresses a fixme in InstSimplify about using decomposeBitTest. This also fixes InstSimplify to handle ugt and ult compares too.
I've modified the interface a little to return only the APInt version of the mask that InstSimplify needs. InstCombine now has a small wrapper routine to create a Constant out of it. I've also dropped the returning of 0 since InstSimplify doesn't need that. So InstCombine creates a zero constant itself.
I also had to make decomposeBitTest support vectors since InstSimplify needs that.
As InstSimplify can't use something from the Transforms library, I've moved the CmpInstAnalysis code to the Analysis library.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D36593
llvm-svn: 310869
Summary:
These functions were overly complicated. The body of this function was rechecking for an And operation to find the constant, but we already knew we were looking at two Ands ORed together and the pieces are in variables. We already had earlier nearby code that checked for ConstantInts. So just inline the remaining parts into the earlier code.
Next step is to use m_APInt instead of ConstantInt.
Reviewers: spatel, efriedma, davide, majnemer
Reviewed By: spatel
Subscribers: zzheng, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D36439
llvm-svn: 310806
This also corrects the description to match what was actually implemented. The old comment said X^(C1|C2), but it implemented X^((C1|C2)&~(C1&C2)). I believe ((C1|C2)&~(C1&C2)) is equivalent to (C1^C2).
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D36505
llvm-svn: 310658
We used to try to truncate the constant vector to vXi1, but if it's already i1 this would fail. Instead we now use IRBuilder::getZExtOrTrunc which should check the type and only create a trunc if needed. I believe this should trigger constant folding in the IRBuilder and ultimately do the same thing just with the additional type check.
llvm-svn: 310639
Note the original code I deleted incorrectly listed this as (X | C1) & C2 --> (X & C2^(C1&C2)) | C1 Which is only valid if C1 is a subset of C2. This relied on SimplifyDemandedBits to remove any extra bits from C1 before we got to that code.
My new implementation avoids relying on that behavior so that it can be naively verified with alive.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D36384
llvm-svn: 310272
Summary:
The (not (sext)) case is really (xor (sext), -1) which should have been simplified to (sext (xor, 1)) before we got here. So we shouldn't need to handle it.
With that taken care of we only need to two cases so don't need the swap anymore. This makes us in sync with the equivalent code in visitOr so inline this to match.
Reviewers: spatel, eli.friedman, majnemer
Reviewed By: spatel
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D36240
llvm-svn: 310063
As far as I can tell this should be handled by foldCastedBitwiseLogic which is called later in visitXor.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D36214
llvm-svn: 309882
This adds support for sext in foldLogicCastConstant. This is a prerequisite for D36214.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D36234
llvm-svn: 309880
Summary:
If one side simplifies to the identity value for inner opcode, we can replace the value with just the operation that can't be simplified.
I've removed a couple now unneeded special cases in visitAnd and visitOr. There are probably other cases I missed.
Reviewers: spatel, majnemer, hfinkel, dberlin
Reviewed By: spatel
Subscribers: grandinj, llvm-commits, spatel
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D35451
llvm-svn: 308111
Previously the InstCombiner class contained a pointer to an IR builder that had been passed to the constructor. Sometimes this would be passed to helper functions as either a pointer or the pointer would be dereferenced to be passed by reference.
This patch makes it a reference everywhere including the InstCombiner class itself so there is more inconsistency. This a large, but mechanical patch. I've done very minimal formatting changes on it despite what clang-format wanted to do.
llvm-svn: 307451
Going through the Constant methods requires redetermining that the Constant is a ConstantInt and then calling isZero/isOne/isMinusOne.
llvm-svn: 307292
Bswap isn't a simple operation so we need to make sure we are really removing a call to it before doing these simplifications.
For the case when both LHS and RHS are bswaps I've allowed it to be moved if either LHS or RHS has a single use since that at least allows us to move it later where it might find another bswap to combine with and it decreases the use count on the other side so maybe the other user can be optimized.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D34974
llvm-svn: 307273
Summary:
I came across this while thinking about what would happen if one of the operands in this xor pattern was itself a inverted (A & ~B) ^ (~A & B)-> (A^B).
The patterns here assume that the (~a | ~b) will be demorganed to ~(a & b) first. Though I wonder if there's a multiple use case that would prevent the demorgan.
Reviewers: spatel
Reviewed By: spatel
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D34870
llvm-svn: 306967
There are two conditions ORed here with similar checks and each contain two matches that must be true for the if to succeed. With the commutable match on the first half of the OR then both ifs basically have the same first part and only the second part distinguishs. With this change we move the commutable match to second half and make the first half unique.
This caused some tests to change because we now produce a commuted result, but this shouldn't matter in practice.
llvm-svn: 306800
If the components of the and/or had multiple uses, this transform created an additional instruction.
This patch makes sure we remove one of the components.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D34498
llvm-svn: 306027
Sanjay Patel