(X | MaskC) == C --> (X & ~MaskC) == C ^ MaskC
(X | MaskC) != C --> (X & ~MaskC) != C ^ MaskC
We have more analyis for 'and' patterns and already lean this way
in the existing code, so this should be neutral or better in IR.
If this does not do as well in codegen, the problem already exists
and we should fix that based on target costs/heuristics.
http://volta.cs.utah.edu:8080/z/oP3ecL
define void @src(i8 %x, i8 %OrC, i8 %C, i1* %p0, i1* %p1) {
%or = or i8 %x, %OrC
%eq = icmp eq i8 %or, %C
store i1 %eq, i1* %p0
%ne = icmp ne i8 %or, %C
store i1 %ne, i1* %p1
ret void
}
define void @tgt(i8 %x, i8 %OrC, i8 %C, i1* %p0, i1* %p1) {
%NotOrC = xor i8 %OrC, -1
%a = and i8 %x, %NotOrC
%NewC = xor i8 %C, %OrC
%eq = icmp eq i8 %a, %NewC
store i1 %eq, i1* %p0
%ne = icmp ne i8 %a, %NewC
store i1 %ne, i1* %p1
ret void
}
Summary:
As we have discussed previously (e.g. in D63992 / D64090 / [[ https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=42457 | PR42457 ]]), `sub` instruction
can almost be considered non-canonical. While we do convert `sub %x, C` -> `add %x, -C`,
we sparsely do that for non-constants. But we should.
Here, i propose to interpret `sub %x, %y` as `add (sub 0, %y), %x` IFF the negation can be sinked into the `%y`
This has some potential to cause endless combine loops (either around PHI's, or if there are some opposite transforms).
For former there's `-instcombine-negator-max-depth` option to mitigate it, should this expose any such issues
For latter, if there are still any such opposing folds, we'd need to remove the colliding fold.
In any case, reproducers welcomed!
Reviewers: spatel, nikic, efriedma, xbolva00
Reviewed By: spatel
Subscribers: xbolva00, mgorny, hiraditya, reames, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D68408
We can treat icmp eq X, MIN_UINT as icmp ule X, MIN_UINT and allow
it to merge with icmp ugt X, C. Similar for the other constants.
We can do simliar for icmp ne X, (U)INT_MIN/MAX in foldAndOfICmps. And we already handled UINT_MIN there.
Fixes PR42691.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D65017
llvm-svn: 366945
icmp ne %x, INT_MIN can be treated similarly to icmp sgt %x, INT_MIN.
icmp ne %x, INT_MAX can be treated similarly to icmp slt %x, INT_MAX.
icmp ne %x, UINT_MAX can be treated similarly to icmp ult %x, UINT_MAX.
We already treat icmp ne %x, 0 similarly to icmp ugt %x, 0
llvm-svn: 366662
As it's causing some bot failures (and per request from kbarton).
This reverts commit r358543/ab70da07286e618016e78247e4a24fcb84077fda.
llvm-svn: 358546
This bug was created by rL335258 because we used to always call instsimplify
after trying the associative folds. After that change it became possible
for subsequent folds to encounter unsimplified code (and potentially assert
because of it).
Instead of carrying changed state through instcombine, we can just return
immediately. This allows instsimplify to run, so we can continue assuming
that easy folds have already occurred.
llvm-svn: 336965
We can simplify (or (icmp X, C1), (icmp X, C2)) to 'true' or one of the icmps in many cases.
I had to check some of these with Alive to prove to myself it's right, but everything seems
to check out. Eg, the deleted code in instcombine was completely ignoring predicates with
mismatched signedness.
This is a follow-up to:
https://reviews.llvm.org/rL301260https://reviews.llvm.org/D32143
llvm-svn: 302370
We can simplify (and (icmp X, C1), (icmp X, C2)) to one of the icmps in many cases.
I had to check some of these with Alive to prove to myself it's right, but everything
seems to check out. Eg, the code in instcombine was completely ignoring predicates with
mismatched signedness.
Handling or-of-icmps would be a follow-up step.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D32143
llvm-svn: 301260
...when C1 differs from C2 by one bit and C1 <u C2:
http://rise4fun.com/Alive/Vuo
And move related folds to a helper function. This reduces code duplication and
will make it easier to remove the scalar-only restriction as a follow-up step.
llvm-svn: 300364
A number of new patterns for simplifying and/xor of icmp:
(icmp ne %x, 0) ^ (icmp ne %y, 0) => icmp ne %x, %y if the following is true:
1- (%x = and %a, %mask) and (%y = and %b, %mask)
2- %mask is a power of 2.
(icmp eq %x, 0) & (icmp ne %y, 0) => icmp ult %x, %y if the following is true:
1- (%x = and %a, %mask1) and (%y = and %b, %mask2)
2- Let %t be the smallest power of 2 where %mask1 & %t != 0. Then for any
%s that is a power of 2 and %s & %mask2 != 0, we must have %s <= %t.
For example if %mask1 = 24 and %mask2 = 16, setting %s = 16 and %t = 8
violates condition (2) above. So this optimization cannot be applied.
llvm-svn: 289813
Sanjay Patel