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
