Follow-on to:
ec0b406e16c44f1554
This should prevent crashing for example like issue #58552
by not matching a select-of-vectors-with-scalar-condition.
The test that shows a regression seems unlikely to occur
in real code.
This also picks up an optimization in the case where a real
(bitwise) logic op is used. We could already convert some
similar select ops to real logic via impliesPoison(), so
we don't see more diffs on commuted tests. Using commutative
matchers (when safe) might also handle one of the TODO tests.
This should prevent crashing for the example in issue #58552
by not matching a select-of-vectors-with-scalar-condition.
A similar change is likely needed for the related fold to
properly fix that kind of bug.
The test that shows a regression seems unlikely to occur
in real code.
This also picks up an optimization in the case where a real
(bitwise) logic op is used. We could already convert some
similar select ops to real logic via impliesPoison(), so
we don't see more diffs on commuted tests. Using commutative
matchers (when safe) might also handle one of the TODO tests.
This is a sibling transform to the fold just above it. That was changed
to allow the corresponding commuted patterns with:
307307456277
e1bd759ea567
8628e6df7000
Without a freeze, this transform can leak poison to the output:
https://alive2.llvm.org/ce/z/GJuF9i
This makes the transform as uniform as possible, and it can help
reduce patterns like issue #58313 (although that particular
example probably still needs another transform).
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D136527
When the common value is part of either select condition,
this is safe to reduce. Otherwise, it is not poison-safe
(with the select form of the pattern):
https://alive2.llvm.org/ce/z/FxQTzB
This is another patch motivated by issue #58313.
This is obviously correct for real logic instructions,
and it also works for the poison-safe variants that use
selects:
https://alive2.llvm.org/ce/z/wyHiwX
This is motivated by the lack of 'xor' folding seen in issue #58313.
This more general fold should help reduce some of those patterns,
but I'm not sure if this specific case does anything for that
particular example.
This allows the regular bitwise logic opcodes in addition to the
poison-safe select variants:
https://alive2.llvm.org/ce/z/8xB9gy
Handling commuted variants safely is likely trickier, so that's
left to another patch.
This is a patch that disables the poison-unsafe select -> and/or i1 folding.
It has been blocking D72396 and also has been the source of a few miscompilations
described in llvm.org/pr49688 .
D99674 conditionally blocked this folding and successfully fixed the latter one.
The former one was still blocked, and this patch addresses it.
Note that a few test functions that has `_logical` suffix are now deoptimized.
These are created by @nikic to check the impact of disabling this optimization
by copying existing original functions and replacing and/or with select.
I can see that most of these are poison-unsafe; they can be revived by introducing
freeze instruction. I left comments at fcmp + select optimizations (or-fcmp.ll, and-fcmp.ll)
because I think they are good targets for freeze fix.
Reviewed By: nikic
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D101191
Relative to the original change, this adds a check that the
instruction on which we're replacing operands is safe to speculatively
execute, because that's what we're effectively doing. We're executing
the instruction with the replaced operand, which is fine if it's pure,
but not fine if can cause side-effects or UB (aka is not speculatable).
Additionally, we cannot (generally) replace operands in phi nodes,
as these may refer to a different loop iteration. This is also covered
by the speculation check.
-----
InstCombine already performs a fold where X == Y ? f(X) : Z is
transformed to X == Y ? f(Y) : Z if f(Y) simplifies. However,
if f(X) only has one use, then we can always directly replace the
use inside the instruction. To actually be profitable, limit it to
the case where Y is a non-expr constant.
This could be further extended to replace uses further up a one-use
instruction chain, but for now this only looks one level up.
Among other things, this also subsumes D94860.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D94862
This caused a miscompile in Chromium, see comments on the codereview for
discussion and pointer to a reproducer.
> InstCombine already performs a fold where X == Y ? f(X) : Z is
> transformed to X == Y ? f(Y) : Z if f(Y) simplifies. However,
> if f(X) only has one use, then we can always directly replace the
> use inside the instruction. To actually be profitable, limit it to
> the case where Y is a non-expr constant.
>
> This could be further extended to replace uses further up a one-use
> instruction chain, but for now this only looks one level up.
>
> Among other things, this also subsumes D94860.
>
> Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D94862
This also reverts the follow-up
a003f26539cf4db744655e76c41f4c4a8913f116:
> [llvm] Prevent infinite loop in InstCombine of select statements
>
> This fixes an issue where the RHS and LHS the comparison operation
> creating the predicate were swapped back and forth forever.
>
> Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D94934
InstCombine already performs a fold where X == Y ? f(X) : Z is
transformed to X == Y ? f(Y) : Z if f(Y) simplifies. However,
if f(X) only has one use, then we can always directly replace the
use inside the instruction. To actually be profitable, limit it to
the case where Y is a non-expr constant.
This could be further extended to replace uses further up a one-use
instruction chain, but for now this only looks one level up.
Among other things, this also subsumes D94860.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D94862
