Support undef shuffle mask indices in the shuffle(concat_vectors, concat_vectors) -> concat_vectors fold
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D58585
llvm-svn: 354793
This fold can occur during legalization, so it can fight with promotion
to the larger type. It apparently takes a special sequence and subtarget
to avoid more basic simplifications that would hide the problem.
But there's a bigger question raised here: why does distributeTruncateThroughAnd()
even exist? It duplicates functionality from a more minimal pattern that we
already have. But getting rid of this function requires some preliminary steps.
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=40793
llvm-svn: 354594
Summary:
A store to an object whose lifetime is about to end can be removed.
See PR40550 for motivation.
Reviewers: niravd
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D57541
llvm-svn: 354244
If we're comparing some value for equality against 2 constants
and those constants have an absolute difference of just 1 bit,
then we can offset and mask off that 1 bit and reduce to a single
compare against zero:
and/or (setcc X, C0, ne), (setcc X, C1, ne/eq) -->
setcc ((add X, -C1), ~(C0 - C1)), 0, ne/eq
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/XslKj
This transform is disabled by default using a TLI hook
("convertSetCCLogicToBitwiseLogic()").
That should be overridden for AArch64, MIPS, Sparc and possibly
others based on the asm shown in:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=40611
llvm-svn: 353859
Now that we have SimplifyDemandedBits support for funnel shifts (rL353539), we need to simplify funnel shifts back to bitshifts in cases where either argument has been folded to undef/zero.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D58009
llvm-svn: 353645
The sqrt case is faster and we already do this for the case where
the exponent is 0.25. This adds the 0.75 case which is also not
sensitive to signed zeros.
Patch by Whitney Tsang (Whitney)
Differential revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D57434
llvm-svn: 353557
Move the (add (umax X, C), -C) --> (usubsat X, C) X86 combine into generic DAGCombiner
First of a number of saturated arithmetic folds that can be moved out of X86-specific code for PR40111.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D57754
llvm-svn: 353457
I noticed that we are missing this canonicalization in IR:
rL352515
...and then realized that we don't get this right in SDAG either,
so this has to be fixed first regardless of what we choose to do in IR.
The existing fold was limited to scalars and using the wrong predicate
to guard the transform. We have a boolean contents TLI query that can
be used to decide which direction to fold.
This may eventually lead back to the problems/question in:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=40486
...but it makes no difference to that yet.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D57401
llvm-svn: 353433
Summary:
If the index isn't constant, this transform inserts a multiply and an add on the index to calculating the base pointer for a scalar load. But we still create a memory operand with an offset of 0 and the size of the scalar access. But the access is really to an unknown offset within the original access size.
This can cause the machine scheduler to incorrectly calculate dependencies between this load and other accesses. In the case we saw, there was a 32 byte vector store that was split into two 16 byte stores, one with offset 0 and one with offset 16. The size of the memory operand for both was 16. The scheduler correctly detected the alias with the offset 0 store, but not the offset 16 store.
This patch discards the pointer info so we don't incorrectly detect aliasing. I wasn't sure if we could keep using the original offset and size without risking some other transform on the load changing the size.
I tried to reduce a test case, but there's still a lot of memory operations needed to get the scheduler to do the bad reordering. So it looked pretty fragile to maintain.
Reviewers: efriedma
Reviewed By: efriedma
Subscribers: arphaman, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D57616
llvm-svn: 353124
Noticed while investigating PR40483, and fixes the basic test case from the bug - but not a more general case.
We're pretty weak at dealing with ADD/SUB combines compared to the SimplifyAssociativeOrCommutative/SimplifyUsingDistributiveLaws abilities that InstCombine can manage.
llvm-svn: 353044
We already have the getConstantOperandVal helper which returns a uint64_t, but along comes the fuzzer and inserts a i128 -1 constant or something and the whole thing asserts.......
I've updated a few obvious cases, and tried to make use of the const reference where possible, but there's more to do. A number of existing oss-fuzz tickets should be fixed if we start using APInt and perform value clamping where necessary.
llvm-svn: 352961
This patch fixes pr39098.
For the attached test case, CombineZExtLogicopShiftLoad can optimize it to
t25: i64 = Constant<1099511627775>
t35: i64 = Constant<0>
t0: ch = EntryToken
t57: i64,ch = load<(load 4 from `i40* undef`, align 8), zext from i32> t0, undef:i64, undef:i64
t58: i64 = srl t57, Constant:i8<1>
t60: i64 = and t58, Constant:i64<524287>
t29: ch = store<(store 5 into `i40* undef`, align 8), trunc to i40> t57:1, t60, undef:i64, undef:i64
But later visitANDLike transforms it to
t25: i64 = Constant<1099511627775>
t35: i64 = Constant<0>
t0: ch = EntryToken
t57: i64,ch = load<(load 4 from `i40* undef`, align 8), zext from i32> t0, undef:i64, undef:i64
t61: i32 = truncate t57
t63: i32 = srl t61, Constant:i8<1>
t64: i32 = and t63, Constant:i32<524287>
t65: i64 = zero_extend t64
t58: i64 = srl t57, Constant:i8<1>
t60: i64 = and t58, Constant:i64<524287>
t29: ch = store<(store 5 into `i40* undef`, align 8), trunc to i40> t57:1, t60, undef:i64, undef:i64
And it triggers CombineZExtLogicopShiftLoad again, causes a dead loop.
Both forms should generate same instructions, CombineZExtLogicopShiftLoad generated IR looks cleaner. But it looks more difficult to prevent visitANDLike to do the transform, so I prevent CombineZExtLogicopShiftLoad to do the transform if the ZExt is free.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D57491
llvm-svn: 352792
While dangling nodes will eventually be pruned when they are
considered, leaving them disables combines requiring single-use.
Reviewers: Carrot, spatel, craig.topper, RKSimon, efriedma
Subscribers: hiraditya, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D57520
llvm-svn: 352784
This extends the existing transform for:
add X, 0/1 --> sub X, 0/-1
...to allow the sibling subtraction fold.
This pattern could regress with the proposed change in D57401.
llvm-svn: 352680
This is the sibling fold for insert-of-insert that was added with D56604.
Now that we have x86 shuffle narrowing (D57156), this change shows improvements for
lots of AVX512 reduction code (not sure that we would ever expect extract-of-extract otherwise).
There's a small regression in some of the partial-permute tests (extracting followed by splat).
That is tracked by PR40500:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=40500
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D57336
llvm-svn: 352528
The current check in CombineToPreIndexedLoadStore is too
conversative, preventing a pre-indexed store when the base pointer
is a predecessor of the value being stored. Instead, we should check
the pointer operand of the store.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D56719
llvm-svn: 351933
vecbo (insertsubv undef, X, Z), (insertsubv undef, Y, Z) --> insertsubv VecC, (vecbo X, Y), Z
This is another step in generic vector narrowing. It's also a step towards more horizontal op
formation specifically for x86 (although we still failed to match those in the affected tests).
The scalarization cases are also not optimal (we should be scalarizing those), but it's still
an improvement to use a narrower vector op when we know part of the result must be constant
because both inputs are undef in some vector lanes.
I think a similar match but checking for a constant operand might help some of the cases in
D51553.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D56875
llvm-svn: 351825
The regression test is reduced from the example shown in D56281.
This does raise a question as noted in the test file: do we want
to handle this pattern? I don't have a motivating example for
that on x86 yet, but it seems like we could have that pattern
there too, so we could avoid the back-and-forth using a shuffle.
llvm-svn: 351753
to reflect the new license.
We understand that people may be surprised that we're moving the header
entirely to discuss the new license. We checked this carefully with the
Foundation's lawyer and we believe this is the correct approach.
Essentially, all code in the project is now made available by the LLVM
project under our new license, so you will see that the license headers
include that license only. Some of our contributors have contributed
code under our old license, and accordingly, we have retained a copy of
our old license notice in the top-level files in each project and
repository.
llvm-svn: 351636
Similar to D55073. Without this change, the DAG combiner crashes on code
with more than 64k of stores in a single basic block that form parallelizable
chains.
No test case, as it would be very IR file.
Reviewed By: RKSimon
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D56740
llvm-svn: 351571
ReduceLoadWidth can trigger using a shifted mask is used and this
requires that the function return a shl node to correct for the
offset. However, the way that this was implemented meant that the
returned result could be an existing node, which would be incorrect.
This fixes the method of inserting the new node and replacing uses.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D50432
llvm-svn: 351310
The motivating case for this is shown in the first regression test. We are
transferring to scalar and back rather than just zero-extending with 'vpmovzxdq'.
That's a special-case for a more general pattern as shown here. In all tests,
we're avoiding the vector-scalar-vector moves in favor of vector ops.
We aren't producing optimal shuffle code in some cases though, so the patch is
limited to reduce regressions.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D56281
llvm-svn: 351198
This pattern:
t33: v8i32 = insert_subvector undef:v8i32, t35, Constant:i64<0>
t21: v16i32 = insert_subvector undef:v16i32, t33, Constant:i64<0>
...shows up in PR33758:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=33758
...although this patch doesn't make any difference to the final result on that yet.
In the affected tests here, it looks like it just makes RA wiggle. But we might
as well squash this to prevent it interfering with other pattern-matching.
Differential Revision:
https://reviews.llvm.org/D56604
llvm-svn: 351008
Nirav Dave