Clang emits (and (ctpop X), 1) for __builtin_parity. If ctpop
isn't natively supported by the target, this leads to poor codegen
due to the expansion of ctpop being more complex than what is needed
for parity.
This adds a DAG combine to convert the pattern to ISD::PARITY
before operation legalization. Type legalization is updated
to handled Expanding and Promoting this operation. If after type
legalization, CTPOP is supported for this type, LegalizeDAG will
turn it back into CTPOP+AND. Otherwise LegalizeDAG will emit a
series of shifts and xors followed by an AND with 1.
I've avoided vectors in this patch to avoid more legalization
complexity for this patch.
X86 previously had a custom DAG combiner for this. This is now
moved to Custom lowering for the new opcode. There is a minor
regression in vector-reduce-xor-bool.ll, but a follow up patch
can easily fix that.
Fixes PR47433
Reviewed By: efriedma
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D87209
fminnum(X, NaN) is X, fminimum(X, NaN) is NaN. This mirrors the
behavior of existing InstSimplify folds.
This is expected to improve the reduction lowerings in D87391,
which use NaN as a neutral element.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D87415
During the main DAGCombine loop, whenever a node gets replaced, the new
node and all its users are pushed onto the worklist. Omit this if the
new node is the EntryToken (e.g. if a store managed to get optimized
out), because re-visiting the EntryToken and its users will not uncover
any additional opportunities, but there may be a large number of such
users, potentially causing compile time explosion.
This compile time explosion showed up in particular when building the
SingleSource/UnitTests/matrix-types-spec.cpp test-suite case on any
platform without SIMD vector support.
Reviewed By: arsenm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D86963
This removes the after the fact FMF handling from D46854 in favor of passing fast math flags to getNode. This should be a superset of D87130.
This required adding a SDNodeFlags to SelectionDAG::getSetCC.
Now we manage to contant fold some stuff undefs during the
initial getNode that we don't do in later DAG combines.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D87200
This is a follow-up suggested in D86420 - if we have a pair of stores
in inverted order for the target endian, we can rotate the source
bits into place.
The "be_i64_to_i16_order" test shows a limitation of the current
function (which might be avoided if we integrate this function with
the other cases in mergeConsecutiveStores). In the earlier
"be_i64_to_i16" test, we skip the first 2 stores because we do not
match the full set as consecutive or rotate-able, but then we reach
the last 2 stores and see that they are an inverted pair of 16-bit
stores. The "be_i64_to_i16_order" test alters the program order of
the stores, so we miss matching the sub-pattern.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D87112
When lowering fixed length vector operations for SVE the subvector
operations are used extensively to marshall data between scalable
and fixed-length vectors. This means that sequences like:
extract_subvec(binop(insert_subvec(a), insert_subvec(b)))
are very common. DAGCombine only checks if the resulting binop is
legal or can be custom lowered when undoing such sequences. When
it's custom lowering that is introducing them the result is an
infinite legalise->combine->legalise loop.
This patch extends the isOperationLegalOr... functions to include
a "LegalOnly" parameter to restrict the check to legal operations
only. Although isOperationLegal could be used it's common for
the affected code paths to be visited pre and post legalisation,
so the extra parameter keeps the code tidy.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D86450
fabs and fneg share a common transformation:
(fneg (bitconvert x)) -> (bitconvert (xor x sign))
(fabs (bitconvert x)) -> (bitconvert (and x ~sign))
This patch separate the code into a single method.
Reviewed By: spatel
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D86862
I tried to fix this in:
rG716e35a0cf53
...but that patch depends on the order that we encounter the
magic "x/sqrt(x)" expression in the combiner's worklist.
This patch should improve that by waiting until we walk the
user list to decide if there's a use to skip.
The AArch64 test reveals another (existing) ordering problem
though - we may try to create an estimate for plain sqrt(x)
before we see that it is part of a 1/sqrt(x) expression.
In general, we probably want to try the multi-use reciprocal
transform before sqrt transforms, but x/sqrt(x) is a special-case
because that will always reduce to plain sqrt(x) or an estimate.
The AArch64 tests show that the transform is limited by TLI
hook to patterns where there are 3 or more uses of the divisor.
So this change can result in an extra division compared to
what we had, but that's the intended behvior based on the
current setting of that hook.
Current `v:t = zext(setcc x,y,cc)` will be transformed to `select x, y, 1:t, 0:t, cc`. It misses some opportunities if x's type size is less than `t`'s size. This patch enhances the above transformation.
Reviewed By: spatel
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D86687
This patch changes ElementCount so that the Min and Scalable
members are now private and can only be accessed via the get
functions getKnownMinValue() and isScalable(). In addition I've
added some other member functions for more commonly used operations.
Hopefully this makes the class more useful and will reduce the
need for calling getKnownMinValue().
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D86065
This is the first of a set of DAGCombiner changes enabling strictfp
optimizations. I want to test to waters with this to make sure changes
like these are acceptable for the strictfp case- this particular change
should preserve exception ordering and result precision perfectly, and
many other possible changes appear to be able to as well.
Copied from regular fadd combines but modified to preserve ordering via
the chain, this change allows strict_fadd x, (fneg y) to become
struct_fsub x, y and strict_fadd (fneg x), y to become strict_fsub y, x.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D85548
We have a gap in our store merging capabilities for shift+truncate
patterns as discussed in:
https://llvm.org/PR46662
I generalized the code/comments for this function in earlier commits,
so we only need ease the type restriction and adjust the address/endian
checking to make this work.
AArch64 lets us switch endian to make sure that patterns are matched
either way.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D86420
With FMF ( "nsz" and " reassoc") fold X/Sqrt(X) to Sqrt(X).
This is done after targets have the chance to produce a
reciprocal sqrt estimate sequence because that expansion
is probably more efficient than an expansion of a
non-reciprocal sqrt. That is also why we deferred doing
this transform in IR (D85709).
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D86403
The pattern matching does not account for truncating stores,
so it is unlikely to work at later stages. So we are likely
wasting compile-time with no hope of improvement by running
this later.
This should be NFC in terms of output because the endian
check further down would bail out too, but we are wasting
time by waiting to that point to give up. If we generalize
that function to deal with more than i8 types, we should
not have to deal with the degenerate case.
The "isa" checks were less constrained because they allow
target constants, but the later matching code would bail
out on those anyway, so this should be slightly more
efficient.
This patch changes SplitVecOp_EXTRACT_VECTOR_ELT to work correctly
for scalable vectors and also fixes an a bug in DAGCombiner where
the scalable property is dropped in visitTRUNCATE when attempting
to fold an extract + a truncate.
Reviewed By: efriedma
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D85754
In narrowExtractedVectorLoad there is an optimisation that tries to
combine extract_subvector with a narrowing vector load. At the moment
this produces warnings due to the incorrect calls to
getVectorNumElements() for scalable vector types. I've got this
working for scalable vectors too when the extract subvector index
is a multiple of the minimum number of elements. I have added a
new variant of the function:
MachineFunction::getMachineMemOperand
that copies an existing MachineMemOperand, but replaces the pointer
info with a null version since we cannot currently represent scaled
offsets.
I've added a new test for this particular case in:
CodeGen/AArch64/sve-extract-subvector.ll
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D83950
Changes the Offset arguments to both functions from int64_t to TypeSize
& updates all uses of the functions to create the offset using TypeSize::Fixed()
Reviewed By: efriedma
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D85220
Follow-up to D82716 / rGea71ba11ab11
We do not have the fabs removal fold in IR yet for the case
where the sqrt operand is repeated, so that's another potential
improvement.
We currently don't do anything to fold any_extend vector loads as no target has such an instruction.
Instead I've added support for folding to a zextload, SimplifyDemandedBits does a good job of adjusting the zext(truncate(()) stages as required later on.
We still need the custom scalar extload handling instead of using the tryToFoldExtOfLoad helper as it has different legality tests - we can probably tweak that to reduce most of the code duplication.
Fixes the regression I mentioned in rG99a971cadff7
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D85129
I have added tests to:
CodeGen/AArch64/sve-intrinsics-int-arith.ll
for doing simple integer add operations on tuple types. Since these
tests introduced new warnings due to incorrect use of
getVectorNumElements() I have also fixed up these warnings in the
same patch. These fixes are:
1. In narrowExtractedVectorBinOp I have changed the code to bail out
early for scalable vector types, since we've not yet hit a case that
proves the optimisations are profitable for scalable vectors.
2. In DAGTypeLegalizer::WidenVecRes_CONCAT_VECTORS I have replaced
calls to getVectorNumElements with getVectorMinNumElements in cases
that work with scalable vectors. For the other cases I have added
asserts that the vector is not scalable because we should not be
using shuffle vectors and build vectors in such cases.
Differential revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D84016
Summary:
In parallelizeChainedStores, a TokenFactor was created with the size greater than 3000.
We found that DAGCombiner::visitTokenFactor will consume a huge amount of time on
such nodes. Since the number of operands already exceeds TokenFactorInlineLimit, we propose
to give up simplification with the consideration of compile time.
Reviewers:
@spatel, @arsenm
Differential Revision:
https://reviews.llvm.org/D84204
This isn't a natively supported operation, so convert it to a
mask+compare.
In addition to the operation itself, fix up some surrounding stuff to
make the testcase work: we need concat_vectors on i1 vectors, we need
legalization of i1 vector truncates, and we need to fix up all the
relevant uses of getVectorNumElements().
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D83811
The existing code already considered this case. Unfortunately a typo in
the condition prevents it from triggering. Also the existing code, had
it run, forgot to do the folding.
This fixes PR42876.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D65802
In DAGCombiner::TransformFPLoadStorePair we were dropping the scalable
property of TypeSize when trying to create an integer type of equivalent
size. In fact, this optimisation makes no sense for scalable types
since we don't know the size at compile time. I have changed the code
to bail out when encountering scalable type sizes.
I've added a test to
llvm/test/CodeGen/AArch64/sve-fp.ll
that exercises this code path. The test already emits an error if it
encounters warnings due to implicit TypeSize->uint64_t conversions.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D83572
We have this generic transform in IR (instcombine),
but as shown in PR41098:
http://bugs.llvm.org/PR41098
...the pattern may emerge in codegen too.
x86 has a potential refinement/reversal opportunity here,
but that should come later or needs a target hook to
avoid the transform. Converting to bswap is the more
specific form, so we should use it if it is available.
This carves out an exception for a pair of consecutive loads that are
reversed from the consecutive order of a pair of stores. All of the
existing profitability/legality checks for the memops remain between
the 2 altered hunks of code.
This should give us the same x86 base-case asm that gcc gets in
PR41098 and PR44895:
http://bugs.llvm.org/PR41098http://bugs.llvm.org/PR44895
I think we are missing a potential subsequent conversion to use "movbe"
if the target supports that. That might be similar to what AArch64
would use to get "rev16".
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D83567
This carves out an exception for a pair of consecutive loads that are
reversed from the consecutive order of a pair of stores. All of the
existing profitability/legality checks for the memops remain between
the 2 altered hunks of code.
This should give us the same x86 base-case asm that gcc gets in
PR41098 and PR44895:i
http://bugs.llvm.org/PR41098http://bugs.llvm.org/PR44895
I think we are missing a potential subsequent conversion to use "movbe"
if the target supports that. That might be similar to what AArch64
would use to get "rev16".
Differential Revision:
fadd (fma A, B, (fmul C, D)), E --> fma A, B, (fma C, D, E)
This is only allowed when "reassoc" is present on the fadd.
As discussed in D80801, this transform goes beyond
what is allowed by "contract" FMF (-ffp-contract=fast).
That is because we are fusing the trailing add of 'E' with a
multiply, but without "reassoc", the code mandates that the
products A*B and C*D are added together before adding in 'E'.
I've added this example to the LangRef to try to clarify the
meaning of "contract". If that seems reasonable, we should
probably do something similar for the clang docs because
there does not appear to be any formal spec for the behavior
of -ffp-contract=fast.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D82499
