The "Correlated Value Propagation" pass was missing a case when handling select instructions. It was only handling the "false" constant value, while in NVPTX the select may have the condition (and thus the branches) inverted, for example:
```
loop:
%phi = phi i32* [ %sel, %loop ], [ %x, %entry ]
%f = tail call i32* @f(i32* %phi)
%cmp1 = icmp ne i32* %f, %y
%sel = select i1 %cmp1, i32* %f, i32* null
%cmp2 = icmp eq i32* %sel, null
br i1 %cmp2, label %return, label %loop
```
But the select condition can be inverted:
```
%cmp1 = icmp eq i32* %f, %y
%sel = select i1 %cmp1, i32* null, i32* %f
```
The fix is to enhance "Correlated Value Propagation" to handle both branches of the select instruction.
Reviewed By: nikic, lebedev.ri
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D119643
Integrate intersection with assumes into getBlockValue(), to ensure
that it is consistently performed.
We were doing it in nearly all places, but for example missed it
for select inputs.
Fixes PR#52190. There is already a check for converting ashr instructions with non-negative left-hand sides into lshr; this patch adds an optimization to remove ashr altogether if the left-hand side is known to be in the range [-1, 1).
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D113835
The legacy PM is deprecated, so update a bunch of lit tests running
opt to use the new PM syntax when specifying the pipeline.
In this patch focus has been put on test cases for ConstantMerge,
ConstraintElimination, CorrelatedValuePropagation, GlobalDCE,
GlobalOpt, SCCP, TailCallElim and PredicateInfo.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D114516
If we're looking only at the lower bound, the actual modulus
doesn't matter. This is a leftover from when I wanted to consider
the upper bound as well, where the modulus does matter.
If (X urem M) >= C we know that X >= C. Make use of this fact
when computing the implied condition range.
In some cases we could also establish an upper bound, but that's
both tricker and not interesting in practice.
Alive: https://alive2.llvm.org/ce/z/R5ZGSW
Now that the reasoning was added to ConstantRange in D90924,
this replicates IndVars variant of this transform (D111836)
in a pass that uses value range reasoning for the transform.
Reviewed By: nikic
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D112895
This reverts commit 9934a5b2ed5aa6e6bbb2e55c3cd98839722c226e.
This patch may cause miscompiles because it missed a constraint
as shown in the examples from:
https://llvm.org/PR51531
The common phi value transform replaces constants with values that
have the same value as the constant on a given edge. However, LVI
generally only provides information that is correct up to poison,
so this can end up replacing a well-defined value with poison.
D69442 addressed an instance of this problem by clearing poison
flags on the generating instruction, which was sufficient at the
time. rGa917fb89dc28 made LVI's edge value analysis slightly more
powerful, and clearing poison flags is no longer sufficient.
This patch changes the transform to instead explicitly guard against
a poison value instead. This should be satisfied for most cases due
to a prior branch on poison.
Fixes https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=50399.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D102966
Also check the case where one operand isn't constant, which isn't
handled right now, because the SPF code requires both operands
to be ranges.
Move the tests to directly check ranges rather than go through an
and, to make it more obvious that this has no relation to bitmasks.
Even if one of the operands is overdefined, we may still produce
a non-overdefined result, e.g. due to a min/max operation. This
matches our handling elsewhere, e.g. for binary operators.
The slot poisoning comment refers to a much older LVI cache
implementation.
Instead of handling a number of special cases for selects, handle
this generally when inferring ranges from conditions. We already
infer ranges from `x + C pred C2` to `x`, so doing the same for
`x pred C2` to `x + C` is straightforward.
These tests didn't test the pattern they were supposed to, because
%a instead of %add was used in the select, which turned this into
a normal min/max).
Noticed this when commenting out the clamp handling code did not
result in any test failures...
LVI previously handled "if (L && R)" conditions, but not
"if (L || R)" conditions. The latter case can still produce
useful information if L and R both constrain the same variable.
This adds support for handling the "if (L || R)" case as well.
The only difference is that we take the union instead of the
intersection of the lattice values.
Following the discussion in D93065, this adds m_LogicalAnd() and
m_LogicalOr() matchers, that match A && B and A || B logical
operations, either as bitwise operations or select expressions.
As an example usage, LVI is adapted to use these matchers for its
condition reasoning.
The plan here is to switch other parts of LLVM that reason about
and/or of conditions to also support the select forms, and then
merge D93065 (or a variant thereof) to disable the poison-unsafe
select to and/or transform.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D93827
InstCombine canonicalizes X>C && X<C' style comparisons into
(X+C1)<C2. This type of expression is recognized by some analyses
like LVI, but currently not when used inside assumptions, because
AssumptionCache does not track affected values for it.
CVP currently handles switches by checking an equality predicate
on all edges from predecessor blocks. Of course, this can only
work if the value being switched over is defined in a different block.
Replace this implementation with a call to getPredicateAt(), which
also does the predecessor edge predicate check (if not defined in
the same block), but can also do quite a bit more: It can reason
about phi-nodes by checking edge predicates for incoming values,
it can reason about assumes, and it can reason about block values.
As such, this makes the implementation both simpler and more
powerful. The compile-time impact on CTMark is in the noise.
These cover cases handled by getPredicateAt(), but not by the
current implementation:
* Assumes based on context instruction.
* Value from phi node in same block (using per-pred reasoning).
* Value from non-phi node in same block (using block-val reasoning).
