In `InstCombiner::visitAdd()`, we have
```
// A+B --> A|B iff A and B have no bits set in common.
if (haveNoCommonBitsSet(LHS, RHS, DL, &AC, &I, &DT))
return BinaryOperator::CreateOr(LHS, RHS);
```
so we should handle such `or`'s here, too.
While we can do that, it doesn't increase instruction count,
if the old `sub` sticks around then the transform is not only
not a unlikely win, but a likely regression, since we likely
now extended live range and use count of both of the `sub` operands,
as opposed to just the result of `sub`.
As Kostya Serebryany notes in post-commit review in
https://reviews.llvm.org/D68408#1998112
this indeed can degrade final assembly,
increase register pressure, and spilling.
This isn't what we want here,
so at least for now let's guard it with an use check.
Summary:
As we have discussed previously (e.g. in D63992 / D64090 / [[ https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=42457 | PR42457 ]]), `sub` instruction
can almost be considered non-canonical. While we do convert `sub %x, C` -> `add %x, -C`,
we sparsely do that for non-constants. But we should.
Here, i propose to interpret `sub %x, %y` as `add (sub 0, %y), %x` IFF the negation can be sinked into the `%y`
This has some potential to cause endless combine loops (either around PHI's, or if there are some opposite transforms).
For former there's `-instcombine-negator-max-depth` option to mitigate it, should this expose any such issues
For latter, if there are still any such opposing folds, we'd need to remove the colliding fold.
In any case, reproducers welcomed!
Reviewers: spatel, nikic, efriedma, xbolva00
Reviewed By: spatel
Subscribers: xbolva00, mgorny, hiraditya, reames, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D68408
