Address the dominating condition, the urem fold is benefit from the analytics improvements.
Fix https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/60546
NOTE: delete the calls in simplifyBinaryIntrinsic and foldICmpWithDominatingICmp
is used to reduce compile time.
Reviewed By: nikic, arsenm, erikdesjardins
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D144248
The only interesting test change is in @PR31262, where the following
fold is now performed, while it previously was not:
https://alive2.llvm.org/ce/z/a5Qmr6
llvm/test/Transforms/InstSimplify/ConstProp/gep.ll has not been
updated, because there is a tradeoff between folding and inrange
preservation there that we may want to discuss.
Updates have been performed using:
https://gist.github.com/nikic/98357b71fd67756b0f064c9517b62a34
isImpliedCondition() currently handles and/or on the LHS, but not
on the RHS, resulting in asymmetric behavior. This patch adds two
new implication rules:
* LHS ==> (RHS1 || RHS2) if LHS ==> RHS1 or LHS ==> RHS2
* LHS ==> !(RHS1 && RHS2) if LHS ==> !RHS1 or LHS ==> !RHS2
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D125551
As it's causing some bot failures (and per request from kbarton).
This reverts commit r358543/ab70da07286e618016e78247e4a24fcb84077fda.
llvm-svn: 358546
This is an almost direct move of the functionality from InstCombine to
InstSimplify. There's no reason not to do this in InstSimplify because
we never create a new value with this transform.
(There's a question of whether any dominance-based transform belongs in
either of these passes, but that's a separate issue.)
I've changed 1 of the conditions for the fold (1 of the blocks for the
branch must be the block we started with) into an assert because I'm not
sure how that could ever be false.
We need 1 extra check to make sure that the instruction itself is in a
basic block because passes other than InstCombine may be using InstSimplify
as an analysis on values that are not wired up yet.
The 3-way compare changes show that InstCombine has some kind of
phase-ordering hole. Otherwise, we would have already gotten the intended
final result that we now show here.
llvm-svn: 347896
