Commit Graph

11 Commits

Author SHA1 Message Date
Craig Topper 66c08430f6 [ValueTracking] When calculating known bits for integer abs, make sure we're looking at a negate and not just any instruction with the nsw flag set.
The matchSelectPattern code can match patterns like (x >= 0) ? x : -x
for absolute value. But it can also match ((x-y) >= 0) ? (x-y) : (y-x).
If the latter form was matched we can only use the nsw flag if its
set on both subtracts.

This match makes sure we're looking at the former case only.

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D65692

llvm-svn: 368195
2019-08-07 18:28:16 +00:00
Craig Topper aa2810b6e7 [InstSimplify] Add test case to show bad sign bit handling for integer abs idiom in computeKnownBits.
computeKnownBits will indicate the sign bit of abs is 0 if the
the RHS operand returned by matchSelectPattern has the nsw flag set.
For abs idioms like (X >= 0) ? X : -X, the RHS returns -X. But
we can also match ((X-Y) >= 0 ? X-Y : Y-X as abs. In this case
RHS will be the Y-X operand. According to Alive, the sign bit for
this is only 0 if both the X-Y and Y-X operands have the nsw flag.
But we're only checking the Y-X operand.

llvm-svn: 367747
2019-08-03 02:54:54 +00:00
Eric Christopher cee313d288 Revert "Temporarily Revert "Add basic loop fusion pass.""
The reversion apparently deleted the test/Transforms directory.

Will be re-reverting again.

llvm-svn: 358552
2019-04-17 04:52:47 +00:00
Eric Christopher a863435128 Temporarily Revert "Add basic loop fusion pass."
As it's causing some bot failures (and per request from kbarton).

This reverts commit r358543/ab70da07286e618016e78247e4a24fcb84077fda.

llvm-svn: 358546
2019-04-17 02:12:23 +00:00
Nikita Popov 00b5ecab5d [ValueTracking] Compute range for abs without nsw
This is a small followup to D59511. The code that was moved into
computeConstantRange() there is a bit overly conversative: If the
abs is not nsw, it does not compute any range. However, abs without
nsw still has a well-defined contiguous unsigned range from 0 to
SIGNED_MIN. This is a lot less useful than the usual 0 to SIGNED_MAX
range, but if we're already here we might as well specify it...

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D59563

llvm-svn: 356586
2019-03-20 18:16:02 +00:00
Nikita Popov 2dd1566e8b [InstSimplify] Add additional cmp of abs without nsw tests; NFC
llvm-svn: 356520
2019-03-19 21:12:21 +00:00
Sanjay Patel 746ebb4ee8 [InstSimplify] fold icmp based on range of abs/nabs (2nd try)
This is retrying the fold from rL345717 
(reverted at rL347780)
...with a fix for the miscompile
demonstrated by PR39510:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=39510

Original commit message:

This is a fix for PR39475:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=39475

We managed to get some of these patterns using computeKnownBits in https://reviews.llvm.org/D47041, but that
can't be used for nabs(). Instead, put in some range-based logic, so we can fold
both abs/nabs with icmp with a constant value.

Alive proofs:
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/21r

Name: abs_nsw_is_positive

  %cmp = icmp slt i32 %x, 0
  %negx = sub nsw i32 0, %x
  %abs = select i1 %cmp, i32 %negx, i32 %x
  %r = icmp sgt i32 %abs, -1
    =>
  %r = i1 true


Name: abs_nsw_is_not_negative

  %cmp = icmp slt i32 %x, 0
  %negx = sub nsw i32 0, %x
  %abs = select i1 %cmp, i32 %negx, i32 %x
  %r = icmp slt i32 %abs, 0
    =>
  %r = i1 false


Name: nabs_is_negative_or_0

  %cmp = icmp slt i32 %x, 0
  %negx = sub i32 0, %x
  %nabs = select i1 %cmp, i32 %x, i32 %negx
  %r = icmp slt i32 %nabs, 1
    =>
  %r = i1 true

Name: nabs_is_not_over_0

  %cmp = icmp slt i32 %x, 0
  %negx = sub i32 0, %x
  %nabs = select i1 %cmp, i32 %x, i32 %negx
  %r = icmp sgt i32 %nabs, 0
    =>
  %r = i1 false

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D53844

llvm-svn: 345832
2018-11-01 14:07:39 +00:00
Sanjay Patel 056807b01e [InstSimplify] add tests for icmp fold bug (PR39510); NFC
Verify that set intersection/subset are not confused.

llvm-svn: 345831
2018-11-01 14:03:22 +00:00
Sanjay Patel 72fe03f93b revert rL345717 : [InstSimplify] fold icmp based on range of abs/nabs
This can miscompile as shown in PR39510:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=39510

llvm-svn: 345780
2018-10-31 21:37:40 +00:00
Sanjay Patel 2efccd2cf2 [InstSimplify] fold icmp based on range of abs/nabs
This is a fix for PR39475:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=39475

We managed to get some of these patterns using computeKnownBits in D47041, but that 
can't be used for nabs(). Instead, put in some range-based logic, so we can fold 
both abs/nabs with icmp with a constant value.

Alive proofs:
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/21r

Name: abs_nsw_is_positive
  %cmp = icmp slt i32 %x, 0
  %negx = sub nsw i32 0, %x
  %abs = select i1 %cmp, i32 %negx, i32 %x
  %r = icmp sgt i32 %abs, -1
    =>
  %r = i1 true
 
Name: abs_nsw_is_not_negative
  %cmp = icmp slt i32 %x, 0
  %negx = sub nsw i32 0, %x
  %abs = select i1 %cmp, i32 %negx, i32 %x
  %r = icmp slt i32 %abs, 0
    =>
  %r = i1 false
 
Name: nabs_is_negative_or_0
  %cmp = icmp slt i32 %x, 0
  %negx = sub i32 0, %x
  %nabs = select i1 %cmp, i32 %x, i32 %negx
  %r = icmp slt i32 %nabs, 1
    =>
  %r = i1 true

Name: nabs_is_not_over_0
  %cmp = icmp slt i32 %x, 0
  %negx = sub i32 0, %x
  %nabs = select i1 %cmp, i32 %x, i32 %negx
  %r = icmp sgt i32 %nabs, 0
    =>
  %r = i1 false

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D53844

llvm-svn: 345717
2018-10-31 13:25:10 +00:00
Sanjay Patel 33603198f2 [InstSimplify] add tests for abs/nabs+icmp folding; NFC
llvm-svn: 345541
2018-10-29 21:05:41 +00:00