foldSelectEquivalence currently doesn't support GVN-like replacements on
vector types. Put in the checks for potentially lane-crossing
operations, and lift the limitation.
The idea behind this canonicalization is that it allows us to handle less
patterns, because we know that some will be canonicalized away. This is
indeed very useful to e.g. know that constants are always on the right.
However, this is only useful if the canonicalization is actually
reliable. This is the case for constants, but not for arguments: Moving
these to the right makes it look like the "more complex" expression is
guaranteed to be on the left, but this is not actually the case in
practice. It fails as soon as you replace the argument with another
instruction.
The end result is that it looks like things correctly work in tests,
while they actually don't. We use the "thwart complexity-based
canonicalization" trick to handle this in tests, but it's often a
challenge for new contributors to get this right, and based on the
regressions this PR originally exposed, we clearly don't get this right
in many cases.
For this reason, I think that it's better to remove this complexity
canonicalization. It will make it much easier to write tests for
commuted cases and make sure that they are handled.
Consider the following case:
```
%cmp = icmp eq ptr %p, null
%load = load i32, ptr %p, align 4
%sel = select i1 %cmp, i32 %load, i32 0
```
`foldSelectValueEquivalence` converts `load i32, ptr %p, align 4` into
`load i32, ptr null, align 4`, which causes immediate UB. `%load` is
speculatable, but it doesn't hold after operand substitution.
This patch introduces a new helper
`isSafeToSpeculativelyExecuteWithVariableReplaced`. It ignores operand
info in these instructions since their operands will be replaced later.
Fixes#99436.
---------
Co-authored-by: Nikita Popov <github@npopov.com>
This is not safe if the simplification ends up looking through
lane-crossing operations. For now, we don't have a good way to
limit this in computeKnownBits(), so just disable vector handling
entirely.
Fixes https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/97475.
Simplify the arms of a select based on the KnownBits implied by its condition.
For now this only handles the case where the select arm folds to a constant,
but this can be generalized to handle other patterns by using
SimplifyDemandedBits instead (in that case we would also have to limit to
non-undef conditions).
This is implemented by adding a new member to SimplifyQuery that can be used
to inject an additional condition. The affected values are pre-computed and
we don't call computeKnownBits() if the select arms don't contain affected
values. This reduces the cost in some pathological cases.
In the X == C ? f(X) : Y -> X == C ? f(C) : Y fold, perform the
replacement in f(X) recursively. For now, this just goes two
instructions up rather than one instruction up.
This diff extends foldSelectInstWithICmp to handle the case icmp(X) ? f(X) : C
when f(X) is guaranteed to be equal to C for all X in the exact range of the inverse predicate.
This addresses the issue https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/54089.
Differential revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D123159
Test plan: make check-all
This adds more poison folding optimizations to InstSimplify.
Since all binary operators propagate poison, these are fine.
Also, the precondition of `select cond, undef, x` -> `x` is relaxed to allow the case when `x` is undef.
Reviewed By: nikic
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D104661
As shown in the example based on:
https://llvm.org/PR49832
...and the existing test, we can't substitute
a vector value because the equality compare
replacement that we are attempting requires
that the comparison is true for the entire
value. Vector select can be partly true/false.
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
When replacing X == Y ? f(X) : Z with X == Y ? f(Y) : Z, make sure
that Y cannot be undef. If it may be undef, we might end up picking
a different value for undef in the comparison and the select
operand.
Reapply after fixing SimplifyWithOpReplaced() to never return
the original value, which would lead to an infinite loop in this
transform.
-----
For selects of the type X == Y ? A : B, check if we can simplify A
by using the X == Y equality and replace the operand if that's
possible. We already try to do this in InstSimplify, but will only
fold if the result of the simplification is the same as B, in which
case the select can be dropped entirely. Here the select will be
retained, just one operand simplified.
As we are performing an actual replacement here, we don't have
problems with refinement / poison values.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D87480
For selects of the type X == Y ? A : B, check if we can simplify A
by using the X == Y equality and replace the operand if that's
possible. We already try to do this in InstSimplify, but will only
fold if the result of the simplification is the same as B, in which
case the select can be dropped entirely. Here the select will be
retained, just one operand simplified.
As we are performing an actual replacement here, we don't have
problems with refinement / poison values.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D87480
As it's causing some bot failures (and per request from kbarton).
This reverts commit r358543/ab70da07286e618016e78247e4a24fcb84077fda.
llvm-svn: 358546
As stated in IEEE-754 and discussed in:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=38086
...the sign of zero does not affect any FP compare predicate.
Known regressions were fixed with:
rL346097 (D54001)
rL346143
The transform will help reduce pattern-matching complexity to solve:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=39475
...as well as improve CSE and codegen (a zero constant is almost always
easier to produce than 0x80..00).
llvm-svn: 346147
It looks like we correctly removed edge cases with 0.0 from D50714,
but we were a bit conservative because getBinOpIdentity() doesn't
distinguish between +0.0 and -0.0 and 'nsz' is effectively always
true for fcmp (see discussion in:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=38086
Without this change, we would get regressions by canonicalizing
to +0.0 in all fcmp, and that's a step towards solving:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=39475
llvm-svn: 346143
