((Op1 * X) / Y) / Op1 --> X / Y
https://alive2.llvm.org/ce/z/JYxWjA
InstSimplify handles the more basic mul+div pattern with
shared operand, but we don't seem to have any reassociation
folds to handle cases where the common op is further away.
This is a generalization of 9cff4711ac72 and another
transform derived from issue #58137.
As discussed in issue #37809, this transform is not safe
if the input is an undefined value.
This is similar to a recent change for urem:
d428f09b2c9d
There is no difference in codegen on the basic examples,
but this could lead to regressions. We may need to
improve freeze analysis or lowering if that happens.
Presumably, in real cases that are similar to the tests
where a subsequent transform removes the select, we
will also be able to remove the freeze by seeing that
the parameter has 'noundef'.
By adding a parameter to function FoldOpIntoSelect， we can fold more Ops to Select.
For this example, we tend to fold the division instruction,
so we no longer care whether SelectInst is one use.
This patch slove TODO left in InstCombine/div.ll.
Reviewed By: RKSimon
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D122967
We avoid this fold in the more general cases where we use FoldOpIntoSelect.
That's because -- unlike most binary opcodes -- 'div' can't usually be
speculated with a variable divisor since it can have immediate UB. But in
the case where both arms of the select are constants, we can safely evaluate
both sides and eliminate 'div' completely.
This is a follow-up to the equivalent fold for 'rem' opcodes:
D115173 / f65be726ab50
This patch updates ConstantVector::getSplat to use poison instead
of undef when using insertelement/shufflevector to splat.
This follows on from D93793.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D107751
This patch extends the various "isXXX" functions of the `Constant` class
to include scalable-vector splats.
In several "isXXX" functions, code that was separately inspecting
`ConstantVector` and `ConstantDataVector` was unified to use
`getSplatValue`, which already includes support for said splats.
In the varous "isNotXXX" functions, code was added to check whether the
scalar splat value -- if any -- satisfies the predicate.
An extra fix for `isNotMinSignedValue` was included, as it previously
crashed when passed a scalable-vector type because it unconditionally
cast to `FixedVectorType`
These changes address numerous missed optimizations, a compiler crash
mentioned above and -- perhaps most egregiously -- an infinite loop in
InstCombine due to the compiler breaking canonical form when it failed
to pick up on a splat in a select instruction.
Test cases have been added to cover as many of these functions as
possible, though existing coverage is slim; it doesn't appear that there
are any in-tree uses of `Constant::isNegativeZeroValue`, for example.
Reviewed By: RKSimon
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D103421
Div/rem by zero is immediate undefined behavior and anything goes.
Currently we fold it to undef, this patch changes it to fold to
poison instead, which is slightly stronger.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D93995
InstCombine operates on the basic premise that the operands of the
currently processed instruction have already been simplified. It
achieves this by pushing instructions to the worklist in reverse
program order, so that instructions are popped off in program order.
The worklist management in the main combining loop also makes sure
to uphold this invariant.
However, the same is not true for all the code that is performing
manual worklist management. The largest problem (addressed in this
patch) are instructions inserted by InstCombine's IRBuilder. These
will be pushed onto the worklist in order of insertion (generally
matching program order), which means that a) the users of the
original instruction will be visited first, as they are pushed later
in the main loop and b) the newly inserted instructions will be
visited in reverse program order.
This causes a number of problems: First, folds operate on instructions
that have not had their operands simplified, which may result in
optimizations being missed (ran into this in
https://reviews.llvm.org/D72048#1800424, which was the original
motivation for this patch). Additionally, this increases the amount
of folds InstCombine has to perform, both within one iteration, and
by increasing the number of total iterations.
This patch addresses the issue by adding a Worklist.AddDeferred()
method, which is used for instructions inserted by IRBuilder. These
will only be added to the real worklist after the combine finished,
and in reverse order, so they will end up processed in program order.
I should note that the same should also be done to nearly all other
uses of Worklist.Add(), but I'm starting with just this occurrence,
which has by far the largest test fallout.
Most of the test changes are due to
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=44521 or other cases where
we don't canonicalize something. These are neutral. One regression
has been addressed in D73575 and D73647. The remaining regression
in an shl+sdiv fold can't really be fixed without dropping another
transform, but does not seem particularly problematic in the first
place.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D73411
As it's causing some bot failures (and per request from kbarton).
This reverts commit r358543/ab70da07286e618016e78247e4a24fcb84077fda.
llvm-svn: 358546
Similar to:
rL358005
Forego folding arbitrary vector constants to fix a possible miscompile bug.
We can enhance the transform if we do want to handle the more complicated
vector case.
llvm-svn: 358013
// 0 - (X sdiv C) -> (X sdiv -C) provided the negation doesn't overflow.
This fold has been around for many years and nobody noticed the potential
vector miscompile from overflow until recently...
So it seems unlikely that there's much demand for a vector sdiv optimization
on arbitrary vector constants, so just limit the matching to splat constants
to avoid the possible bug.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D60426
llvm-svn: 358005
This fold is mentioned in PR38239:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=38239
The general case probably belongs in -reassociate, but given that we do
basic reassociation optimizations similar to this in instcombine already,
we might as well be consistent within instcombine and handle this pattern?
llvm-svn: 338038
Note: I didn't add a hasOneUse() check because the existing,
related fold doesn't have that check. I suspect that the
improved analysis and codegen make these some of the rare
canonicalization cases where we allow an increase in
instructions.
llvm-svn: 335597
The related cases for (X * Y) / X were handled in rL124487.
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/6k9
The division in these tests is subsequently eliminated by existing instcombines
for 1/X.
llvm-svn: 324843
We were using an i1 type and then zero extending to a vector. Instead just create the 0/1 directly as a ConstantInt with the correct type. No need to ask ConstantExpr to zero extend for us.
This bug is a bit tricky to hit because it requires us to visit a zext of an icmp that would normally be simplified to true/false, but that icmp hasnt' been visited yet. In the test case this zext and icmp were created by visiting a udiv and due to worklist ordering we got to the zext first.
Fixes PR34841.
llvm-svn: 314971
This should bring signed div/rem analysis up to the same level as unsigned.
We use icmp simplification to determine when the divisor is known greater than the dividend.
Each positive test is followed by a negative test to show that we're not overstepping the boundaries of the known bits.
There are extra tests for the signed-min-value special cases.
Alive proofs:
http://rise4fun.com/Alive/WI5
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D37713
llvm-svn: 313264
We could try harder to handle non-splat vector constants too,
but that seems much rarer to me.
Note that the div test isn't resolved because there's a check
for isIntegerTy() guarding that transform.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D20497
llvm-svn: 270369
