This is the opposite direction of D62158 (we have to choose 1 form or the other).
Now that we have FMF on the select, this becomes more palatable. And the benefits
of having a single IR instruction for this operation (less chances of missing folds
based on extra uses, etc) overcome my previous comments about the potential advantage
of larger pattern matching/analysis.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D62414
llvm-svn: 364721
Fundamentally/generally, we should not have to rely on bailouts/crippling of
folds. In this particular case, I think we always recognize the inverted
predicate min/max pattern, so there should not be any loss of optimization.
Codegen looks better because we are eliminating an fneg.
llvm-svn: 360180
As it's causing some bot failures (and per request from kbarton).
This reverts commit r358543/ab70da07286e618016e78247e4a24fcb84077fda.
llvm-svn: 358546
As stated in IEEE-754 and discussed in:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=38086
...the sign of zero does not affect any FP compare predicate.
Known regressions were fixed with:
rL346097 (D54001)
rL346143
The transform will help reduce pattern-matching complexity to solve:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=39475
...as well as improve CSE and codegen (a zero constant is almost always
easier to produce than 0x80..00).
llvm-svn: 346147
In PR39475:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=39475
..we may fail to recognize/simplify fabs() in some cases because we do not
canonicalize fcmp with a -0.0 operand.
Adding that canonicalization can cause regressions on min/max FP tests, so
that's this patch: for the purpose of determining whether something is min/max,
let the value returned by the select determine how we treat a 0.0 operand in the fcmp.
This patch doesn't actually change the -0.0 to +0.0. It just changes the analysis, so
we don't fail to recognize equivalent min/max patterns that only differ in the
signbit of 0.0.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D54001
llvm-svn: 346097
This is a preliminary step for the patch discussed in D41136 (and denoted here with the FIXME comment).
When we match an FP min/max that is cast to integer, any intermediate difference between +0.0 or -0.0
should be muted in the result by the conversion (either fptosi or fptoui) of the result. Thus, we can
enable 'nsz' for the purpose of matching fmin/fmax.
Note that there's probably room to generalize this more, possibly by fixing the current calls to the
weak version of isKnownNonZero() in matchSelectPattern() to the more powerful recursive version.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D41333
llvm-svn: 321456
matchSelectPattern attempts to see through casts which mask min/max
patterns from being more obvious. Under certain circumstances, it would
misidentify a sequence of instructions as a min/max because it assumed
that folding casts would preserve the result. This is not the case for
floating point <-> integer casts.
This fixes PR27575.
llvm-svn: 268086
The select pattern recognition in ValueTracking (as used by InstCombine
and SelectionDAGBuilder) only knew about integer patterns. This teaches
it about minimum and maximum operations.
matchSelectPattern() has been extended to return a struct containing the
existing Flavor and a new enum defining the pattern's behavior when
given one NaN operand.
C minnum() is defined to return the non-NaN operand in this case, but
the idiomatic C "a < b ? a : b" would return the NaN operand.
ARM and AArch64 at least have different instructions for these different cases.
llvm-svn: 244580
Sanjay Patel