Summary:
Given a pattern like:
```
%old_cmp1 = icmp slt i32 %x, C2
%old_replacement = select i1 %old_cmp1, i32 %target_low, i32 %target_high
%old_x_offseted = add i32 %x, C1
%old_cmp0 = icmp ult i32 %old_x_offseted, C0
%r = select i1 %old_cmp0, i32 %x, i32 %old_replacement
```
it can be rewritten as more canonical pattern:
```
%new_cmp1 = icmp slt i32 %x, -C1
%new_cmp2 = icmp sge i32 %x, C0-C1
%new_clamped_low = select i1 %new_cmp1, i32 %target_low, i32 %x
%r = select i1 %new_cmp2, i32 %target_high, i32 %new_clamped_low
```
Iff `-C1 s<= C2 s<= C0-C1`
Also, `ULT` predicate can also be `UGE`; or `UGT` iff `C0 != -1` (+invert result)
Also, `SLT` predicate can also be `SGE`; or `SGT` iff `C2 != INT_MAX` (+invert result)
If `C1 == 0`, then all 3 instructions must be one-use; else at most either `%old_cmp1` or `%old_x_offseted` can have extra uses.
NOTE: if we could reuse `%old_cmp1` as one of the comparisons we'll have to build, this could be less limiting.
So there are two icmp's, each one with 3 predicate variants, so there are 9 fold variants:
| | ULT | UGE | UGT |
| SLT | https://rise4fun.com/Alive/yIJ | https://rise4fun.com/Alive/5BfN | https://rise4fun.com/Alive/INH |
| SGE | https://rise4fun.com/Alive/hd8 | https://rise4fun.com/Alive/Abk | https://rise4fun.com/Alive/PlzS |
| SGT | https://rise4fun.com/Alive/VYG | https://rise4fun.com/Alive/oMY | https://rise4fun.com/Alive/KrzC |
{F9730206}
This fold was brought up in https://reviews.llvm.org/D65148#1603922 by @dmgreen, and is needed to unblock that patch.
This patch requires D65530.
Reviewers: spatel, nikic, xbolva00, dmgreen
Reviewed By: spatel
Subscribers: hiraditya, llvm-commits, dmgreen
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D65765
llvm-svn: 368687
Summary:
This is rather unconventional..
As the comment there says, we don't have much folds for xor-of-icmps,
we try to turn them into an and-of-icmps, for which we have plenty of folds.
But if the ICmp we need to invert is not single-use - we give up.
As discussed in https://reviews.llvm.org/D65148#1603922,
we may have a non-canonical CLAMP pattern, with bit match and
select-of-threshold that we'll potentially clamp.
As it can be seen in `canonicalize-clamp-with-select-of-constant-threshold-pattern.ll`,
out of all 8 variations of the pattern, only two are **not** canonicalized into
the variant with and+icmp instead of bit math.
The reason is because the ICmp we need to invert is not single-use - we give up.
We indeed can't perform this fold at will, the general rule is that
we should not increase instruction count in InstCombine,
But we wouldn't end up increasing instruction count if we can adapt every other
user to the inverted value. This way the `not` we create **will** get folded,
and in the end the instruction count did not increase.
For that, of course, we need to look at the users of a Value,
which is again rather unconventional for InstCombine :S
Thus i'm proposing to be a little bit more insistive in `foldXorOfICmps()`.
The alternatives would be to not create that `not`, but add duplicate code to
manually invert all users; or to add some even less general combine to handle
some more specific pattern[s].
Reviewers: spatel, nikic, RKSimon, craig.topper
Reviewed By: spatel
Subscribers: hiraditya, jdoerfert, dmgreen, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D65530
llvm-svn: 368685
Instead of matching value and then blindly casting to BinaryOperator
just to get the opcode, just match instruction and do no cast.
Fixes https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=42962
llvm-svn: 368554
If one of the values being shifted is a constant, since the new shift
amount is known-constant, the new shift will end up being constant-folded
so, we don't need that one-use restriction then.
llvm-svn: 368519
That one-use restriction is not needed for correctness - we have already
ensured that one of the shifts will go away, so we know we won't increase
the instruction count. So there is no need for that restriction.
llvm-svn: 368518
Summary:
In SimplifySelectsFeedingBinaryOp, propagate fast math flags from the
outer op into both arms of the new select, to take advantage of
simplifications that require fast math flags.
Reviewers: mcberg2017, majnemer, spatel, arsenm, xbolva00
Subscribers: wdng, javed.absar, kristof.beyls, hiraditya, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D65658
llvm-svn: 368175
This was initially committed in r368059 but got reverted in r368084
because there was a faulty logic in how the shift amounts type mismatch
was being handled (it simply wasn't).
I've added an explicit bailout before we SimplifyAddInst() - i don't think
it's designed in general to handle differently-typed values, even though
the actual problem only comes from ConstantExpr's.
I have also changed the common type deduction, to not just blindly
look past zext, but try to do that so that in the end types match.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D65380
llvm-svn: 368141
This reverts r368059 (git commit 0f957109761913c563922f1afd4ceb29ef21bbd0)
This caused Clang to assert while self-hosting and compiling
SystemZInstrInfo.cpp. Reduction is running.
llvm-svn: 368084
Summary:
Currently `reassociateShiftAmtsOfTwoSameDirectionShifts()` only handles
two shifts one after another. If the shifts are `shl`, we still can
easily perform the fold, with no extra legality checks:
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/OQbM
If we have right-shift however, we won't be able to make it
any simpler than it already is.
After this the only thing missing here is constant-folding: (`NewShAmt >= bitwidth(X)`)
* If it's a logical shift, then constant-fold to `0` (not `undef`)
* If it's a `ashr`, then a splat of original signbit
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/E1Khttps://rise4fun.com/Alive/i0V
Reviewers: spatel, nikic, xbolva00
Reviewed By: spatel
Subscribers: hiraditya, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D65380
llvm-svn: 368059
This appears to slightly help patterns similar to what's
shown in PR42874:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=42874
...but not in the way requested.
That fix will require some later IR and/or backend pass to
decompose multiply/shifts into something more optimal per
target. Those transforms already exist in some basic forms,
but probably need enhancing to catch more cases.
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/Qzv2
llvm-svn: 367891
As discussed in PR42696:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=42696
...but won't help that case yet.
We have an odd situation where a select operand equivalence fold was
implemented in InstSimplify when it could have been done more generally
in InstCombine if we allow dropping of {nsw,nuw,exact} from a binop operand.
Here's an example:
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/Xplr
%cmp = icmp eq i32 %x, 2147483647
%add = add nsw i32 %x, 1
%sel = select i1 %cmp, i32 -2147483648, i32 %add
=>
%sel = add i32 %x, 1
I've left the InstSimplify code in place for now, but my guess is that we'd
prefer to remove that as a follow-up to save on code duplication and
compile-time.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D65576
llvm-svn: 367695
Summary:
Sometimes we need to swap true-val and false-val of a `SelectInst`.
Having a function for that is nicer than hand-writing it each time.
Reviewers: spatel, RKSimon, craig.topper, jdoerfert
Reviewed By: jdoerfert
Subscribers: jdoerfert, hiraditya, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D65520
llvm-svn: 367547
Reverse the canonicalization of fneg relative to fmul/fdiv. That makes it
easier to implement the transforms (and possibly other fneg transforms) in
1 place because we can always start the pattern match from fneg (either the
legacy binop or the new unop).
There's a secondary practical benefit seen in PR21914 and PR42681:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=21914https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=42681
...hoisting fneg rather than sinking seems to play nicer with LICM in IR
(although this change may expose analysis holes in the other direction).
1. The instcombine test changes show the expected neutral IR diffs from
reversing the order.
2. The reassociation tests show that we were missing an optimization
opportunity to fold away fneg-of-fneg. My reading of IEEE-754 says
that all of these transforms are allowed (regardless of binop/unop
fneg version) because:
"For all other operations [besides copy/abs/negate/copysign], this
standard does not specify the sign bit of a NaN result."
In all of these transforms, we always have some other binop
(fadd/fsub/fmul/fdiv), so we are free to flip the sign bit of a
potential intermediate NaN operand.
(If that interpretation is wrong, then we must already have a bug in
the existing transforms?)
3. The clang tests shouldn't exist as-is, but that's effectively a
revert of rL367149 (the test broke with an extension of the
pre-existing fneg canonicalization in rL367146).
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D65399
llvm-svn: 367447
Summary:
I have stumbled into this by accident while preparing to extend backend `x s% C ==/!= 0` handling.
While we did happen to handle this fold in most of the cases,
the folding is indirect - we fold `x u% y` to `x & (y-1)` (iff `y` is power-of-two),
or first turn `x s% -y` to `x u% y`; that does handle most of the cases.
But we can't turn `x s% INT_MIN` to `x u% -INT_MIN`,
and thus we end up being stuck with `(x s% INT_MIN) == 0`.
There is no such restriction for the more general fold:
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/IIeS
To be noted, the fold does not enforce that `y` is a constant,
so it may indeed increase instruction count.
This is consistent with what `x u% y`->`x & (y-1)` already does.
I think it makes sense, it's at most one (simple) extra instruction,
while `rem`ainder is really much more un-simple (and likely **very** costly).
Reviewers: spatel, RKSimon, nikic, xbolva00, craig.topper
Reviewed By: RKSimon
Subscribers: hiraditya, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D65046
llvm-svn: 367322
The backend already does this via isNegatibleForFree(),
but we may want to alter the fneg IR canonicalizations
that currently exist, so we need to try harder to fold
fneg in IR to avoid regressions.
llvm-svn: 367227
The backend already does this via isNegatibleForFree(),
but we may want to alter the fneg IR canonicalizations
that currently exist, so we need to try harder to fold
fneg in IR to avoid regressions.
llvm-svn: 367194
(Y * (1.0 - Z)) + (X * Z) -->
Y - (Y * Z) + (X * Z) -->
Y + Z * (X - Y)
This is part of solving:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=42716
Factoring eliminates an instruction, so that should be a good canonicalization.
The potential conversion to FMA would be handled by the backend based on target
capabilities.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D65305
llvm-svn: 367101
This reverts commit bc4a63fd3c29c1a8ce22891bf34ee4dccfef578c, this is a
speculative revert to fix a number of sanitizer bots (like
sanitizer-x86_64-linux-bootstrap-ubsan) that have started to see stage2
compiler crashes, presumably due to a miscompile.
llvm-svn: 367029
trunc (load X) --> load (bitcast X to narrow type)
We have this transform in DAGCombiner::ReduceLoadWidth(), but the truncated
load pattern can interfere with other instcombine transforms, so I'd like to
allow the fold sooner.
Example:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16739
...in that report, we have bitcasts bracketing these ops, so those could get
eliminated too.
We've generally ruled out widening of loads early in IR ( LoadCombine -
http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2016-September/105291.html ), but
that reasoning may not apply to narrowing if we can preserve information
such as the dereferenceable range.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D64432
llvm-svn: 367011
We can treat icmp eq X, MIN_UINT as icmp ule X, MIN_UINT and allow
it to merge with icmp ugt X, C. Similar for the other constants.
We can do simliar for icmp ne X, (U)INT_MIN/MAX in foldAndOfICmps. And we already handled UINT_MIN there.
Fixes PR42691.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D65017
llvm-svn: 366945
For equality, the function called getTrue/getFalse with the VT
of the comparison input. But getTrue/getFalse need the boolean VT.
So if this code ever executed, it would assert.
I believe these cases are removed by InstSimplify so we don't get here.
So this patch just fixes up an assert to exclude the equality
possibility and removes the broken code.
llvm-svn: 366649
AddOne/SubOne create new Constant objects. That seems heavy for
comparing ConstantInts which wrap APInts. Just do the math on
on the APInts and compare them.
llvm-svn: 366648
Summary:
If we have some pattern that leaves only some low bits set, and then performs
left-shift of those bits, if none of the bits that are left after the final
shift are modified by the mask, we can omit the mask.
There are many variants to this pattern:
f. `((x << MaskShAmt) a>> MaskShAmt) << ShiftShAmt`
All these patterns can be simplified to just:
`x << ShiftShAmt`
iff:
f. `(ShiftShAmt-MaskShAmt) s>= 0` (i.e. `ShiftShAmt u>= MaskShAmt`)
Normally, the inner pattern is sign-extend,
but for our purposes it's no different to other patterns:
alive proofs:
f: https://rise4fun.com/Alive/7U3
For now let's start with patterns where both shift amounts are variable,
with trivial constant "offset" between them, since i believe this is
both simplest to handle and i think this is most common.
But again, there are likely other variants where we could use
ValueTracking/ConstantRange to handle more cases.
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=42563
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D64524
llvm-svn: 366540
Summary:
If we have some pattern that leaves only some low bits set, and then performs
left-shift of those bits, if none of the bits that are left after the final
shift are modified by the mask, we can omit the mask.
There are many variants to this pattern:
e. `((x << MaskShAmt) l>> MaskShAmt) << ShiftShAmt`
All these patterns can be simplified to just:
`x << ShiftShAmt`
iff:
e. `(ShiftShAmt-MaskShAmt) s>= 0` (i.e. `ShiftShAmt u>= MaskShAmt`)
alive proofs:
e: https://rise4fun.com/Alive/0FT
For now let's start with patterns where both shift amounts are variable,
with trivial constant "offset" between them, since i believe this is
both simplest to handle and i think this is most common.
But again, there are likely other variants where we could use
ValueTracking/ConstantRange to handle more cases.
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=42563
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D64521
llvm-svn: 366539
Summary:
If we have some pattern that leaves only some low bits set, and then performs
left-shift of those bits, if none of the bits that are left after the final
shift are modified by the mask, we can omit the mask.
There are many variants to this pattern:
d. `(x & ((-1 << MaskShAmt) >> MaskShAmt)) << ShiftShAmt`
All these patterns can be simplified to just:
`x << ShiftShAmt`
iff:
d. `(ShiftShAmt-MaskShAmt) s>= 0` (i.e. `ShiftShAmt u>= MaskShAmt`)
alive proofs:
d: https://rise4fun.com/Alive/I5Y
For now let's start with patterns where both shift amounts are variable,
with trivial constant "offset" between them, since i believe this is
both simplest to handle and i think this is most common.
But again, there are likely other variants where we could use
ValueTracking/ConstantRange to handle more cases.
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=42563
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D64519
llvm-svn: 366538
Summary:
If we have some pattern that leaves only some low bits set, and then performs
left-shift of those bits, if none of the bits that are left after the final
shift are modified by the mask, we can omit the mask.
There are many variants to this pattern:
c. `(x & (-1 >> MaskShAmt)) << ShiftShAmt`
All these patterns can be simplified to just:
`x << ShiftShAmt`
iff:
c. `(ShiftShAmt-MaskShAmt) s>= 0` (i.e. `ShiftShAmt u>= MaskShAmt`)
alive proofs:
c: https://rise4fun.com/Alive/RgJh
For now let's start with patterns where both shift amounts are variable,
with trivial constant "offset" between them, since i believe this is
both simplest to handle and i think this is most common.
But again, there are likely other variants where we could use
ValueTracking/ConstantRange to handle more cases.
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=42563
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D64517
llvm-svn: 366537
Summary:
If we have some pattern that leaves only some low bits set, and then performs
left-shift of those bits, if none of the bits that are left after the final
shift are modified by the mask, we can omit the mask.
There are many variants to this pattern:
b. `(x & (~(-1 << maskNbits))) << shiftNbits`
All these patterns can be simplified to just:
`x << ShiftShAmt`
iff:
b. `(MaskShAmt+ShiftShAmt) u>= bitwidth(x)`
alive proof:
b: https://rise4fun.com/Alive/y8M
For now let's start with patterns where both shift amounts are variable,
with trivial constant "offset" between them, since i believe this is
both simplest to handle and i think this is most common.
But again, there are likely other variants where we could use
ValueTracking/ConstantRange to handle more cases.
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=42563
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D64514
llvm-svn: 366536
Summary:
If we have some pattern that leaves only some low bits set, and then performs
left-shift of those bits, if none of the bits that are left after the final
shift are modified by the mask, we can omit the mask.
There are many variants to this pattern:
a. `(x & ((1 << MaskShAmt) - 1)) << ShiftShAmt`
All these patterns can be simplified to just:
`x << ShiftShAmt`
iff:
a. `(MaskShAmt+ShiftShAmt) u>= bitwidth(x)`
alive proof:
a: https://rise4fun.com/Alive/wi9
Indeed, not all of these patterns are canonical.
But since this fold will only produce a single instruction
i'm really interested in handling even uncanonical patterns,
since i have this general kind of pattern in hotpaths,
and it is not totally outlandish for bit-twiddling code.
For now let's start with patterns where both shift amounts are variable,
with trivial constant "offset" between them, since i believe this is
both simplest to handle and i think this is most common.
But again, there are likely other variants where we could use
ValueTracking/ConstantRange to handle more cases.
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=42563
Reviewers: spatel, nikic, huihuiz, xbolva00
Reviewed By: xbolva00
Subscribers: efriedma, hiraditya, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D64512
llvm-svn: 366535
This makes the functions in Loads.h require a type to be specified
independently of the pointer Value so that when pointers have no structure
other than address-space, it can still do its job.
Most callers had an obvious memory operation handy to provide this type, but a
SROA and ArgumentPromotion were doing more complicated analysis. They get
updated to merge the properties of the various instructions they were
considering.
llvm-svn: 365468
Forming the canonical splat shuffle improves analysis and
may allow follow-on transforms (although some possibilities
are missing as shown in the test diffs).
The backend generically turns these patterns into build_vector,
so there should be no codegen regressions. All targets are
expected to be able to lower splats efficiently.
llvm-svn: 365379
We recognize a splat from element 0 in (VectorUtils) llvm::getSplatValue()
and also in ShuffleVectorInst::isZeroEltSplatMask(), so this converts
to that form for better matching.
The backend generically turns these patterns into build_vector,
so there should be no codegen difference.
llvm-svn: 365342
We allow forming a splat (broadcast) shuffle, but we were conservatively limiting
that to cases where all elements of the vector are specified. It should be safe
from a codegen perspective to allow undefined lanes of the vector because the
expansion of a splat shuffle would become the chain of inserts again.
Forming splat shuffles can reduce IR and help enable further IR transforms.
Motivating bugs:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=42174https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16739
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D63848
llvm-svn: 365147
I was actually wondering if there was some nicer way than m_Value()+cast,
but apparently what i was really "subconsciously" thinking about
was correctness issue.
hasNoUnsignedWrap()/hasNoUnsignedWrap() exist for Instruction,
not for BinaryOperator, so let's just use m_Instruction(),
thus both avoiding a cast, and a crash.
Fixes https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=42484,
https://bugs.chromium.org/p/oss-fuzz/issues/detail?id=15587
llvm-svn: 364915
Extends the transform from:
rL364341
...to include another (more common?) pattern that tests whether a
value is a power-of-2 (including or excluding zero).
llvm-svn: 364856
