When pushing an operation across a phi node, we should avoid doing
so across a loop backedge. This is generally non-profitable, because
it does not reduce the number of times the operation is executed,
and could lead to an infinite combine loop.
The code was already guarding against this, but using an
insufficiently strong condition, which did not cover the case where
the operation was originally outside the loop (in which case the
transform moves the operation from outside the loop into the loop,
which is particularly undesirable).
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D127499
The 1st try ( afa192cfb6049a15c55 ) was reverted because it could
cause an infinite loop with constant expressions.
A test for that and an extra condition to enable the transform
are added now. I also added code comments to better describe
the transform and the existing, related transform.
Original commit message:
https://alive2.llvm.org/ce/z/hRy3rE
As shown in D123408, we can produce this pattern when moving
casts around, and we already have a related fold for a binop
with a constant operand.
In foldSelectIntoOp we sometimes transform a select of a fadd into a
fadd of a select, where we select between data and an identity value.
For both fadd and fsub the identity is always -0.0, but if the nsz
flag is set on the select instruction we can use +0.0 instead. Doing
so then triggers other optimisations, such as when folding the select
of masked load into a new masked load.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D126774
This patch improves the fix in D110529 to prevent from crashing on value
with byval attribute that is not added in SCCP solver.
Authored-by: sinan.lin@linux.alibaba.com
Reviewed By: ChuanqiXu
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D126355
This adds a fold for aggressive instcombine that converts
smin(smax(fptosi(x))) into a llvm.fptosi.sat, providing that the
saturation constants are correct and the cost of the llvm.fptosi.sat is
lower.
Unfortunately, a llvm.fptosi.sat cannot always be converted back to a
smin/smax/fptosi. The llvm.fptosi.sat intrinsic is more defined that the
original, which produces poison if the original fptosi was out of range.
The llvm.fptosi.sat will saturate any value, so needs to be expanded to
a fptosi(fpmin(fpmax(x))), which can be worse for codegeneration
depending on the target.
So this change thais conditional on the backend reporting that the
llvm.fptosi.sat is cheaper that the original smin+smax+fptost. This is
a change to the way that AggressiveInstrcombine has worked in the past.
Instead of just being a canonicalization pass, that canonicalization can
be dependant on the target in certain specific cases.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D125755
Teach the unroller(s) how to handle an invalid cost. This avoids crashes when the backend can't provide a cost due to either a fundemental limitation or an unimplemented cost model case.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D127305
Per the documentation in Support/InstructionCost.h, the purpose of an invalid cost is so that clients can change behavior on impossible to cost inputs. CodeMetrics was instead asserting that invalid costs never occurred.
On a target with an incomplete cost model - e.g. RISCV - this means that transformations would crash on (falsely) invalid constructs - e.g. scalable vectors. While we certainly should improve the cost model - and I plan to do so in the near future - we also shouldn't be crashing. This violates the explicitly stated purpose of an invalid InstructionCost.
I updated all of the "easy" consumers where bailouts were locally obvious. I plan to follow up with loop unroll in a following change.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D127131
https://alive2.llvm.org/ce/z/hRy3rE
As shown in D123408, we can produce this pattern when moving
cast around, and we already have a related fold for a binop
with a constant operand.
For the longest time we used `AAValueSimplify` and
`genericValueTraversal` to determine "potential values". This was
problematic for many reasons:
- We recomputed the result a lot as there was no caching for the 9
locations calling `genericValueTraversal`.
- We added the idea of "intra" vs. "inter" procedural simplification
only as an afterthought. `genericValueTraversal` did offer an option
but `AAValueSimplify` did not. Thus, we might end up with "too much"
simplification in certain situations and then gave up on it.
- Because `genericValueTraversal` was not a real `AA` we ended up with
problems like the infinite recursion bug (#54981) as well as code
duplication.
This patch introduces `AAPotentialValues` and replaces the
`AAValueSimplify` uses with it. `genericValueTraversal` is folded into
`AAPotentialValues` as are the instruction simplifications performed in
`AAValueSimplify` before. We further distinguish "intra" and "inter"
procedural simplification now.
`AAValueSimplify` was not deleted as we haven't ported the
re-materialization of instructions yet. There are other differences over
the former handling, e.g., we may not fold trivially foldable
instructions right now, e.g., `add i32 1, 1` is not folded to `i32 2`
but if an operand would be simplified to `i32 1` we would fold it still.
We are also even more aware of function/SCC boundaries in CGSCC passes,
which is good.
Fixes: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/54981
When determining liveness via Attributor::isAssumedDead(...) we might
end up without a liveness AA or with one pointing into another function.
Neither is helpful and we will avoid both from now on.
Clang-format InstructionSimplify and convert all "FunctionName"s to
"functionName". This patch does touch a lot of files but gets done with
the cleanup of InstructionSimplify in one commit.
This is the alternative to the less invasive clang-format only patch: D126783
Reviewed By: spatel, rengolin
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D126889
All information is already available in VPlan. Note that there are some
test changes, because we now can correctly look through instructions
like truncates to analyze the actual users.
Reviewed By: Ayal
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D123541
We can use constant to allow undef and there is no need to force
integers in the API anyway. The user can decide if a non integer
constant is fine or not.
We need to be careful replacing values as call site arguments
(IRPosition::IRP_CALL_SITE_ARGUMENT) is representing a use and not a
value. This patch replaces the interface to take a IR position instead
making it harder to misuse accidentally. It does not change our tests
right now but a follow up exposed the potential footgun.
We used to be very conservative when integer states were merged.
Instead of adding the known range (which is large due to uncertainty)
into the assumed range (which is hopefully small), we can also only
allow to merge in both at the same time into their respective
counterpart. This will ensure we keep the invariant that assumed is part
of known.
When we recreate instructions as part of simplification we need to take
care of debug metadata and replacing the value multiple times. For now,
we handle both conservatively.
The patch simplifies some of the patterns as below
(A | (B & C0)) | (B & C1) -> A | (B & C0|C1)
((B & C0) | A) | (B & C1) -> (B & C0|C1) | A
In some scenarios like byte reverse on half word, we can see this pattern multiple times and this conversion can optimize these patterns.
Additionally this commit fixes the issue reported with the test case.
int f(int a, int b) {
int c = ((unsigned char)(a >> 23) & 925);
if (a)
c = (a >> 23 & b) | ((unsigned char)(a >> 23) & 925) | (b >> 23 & 157);
return c;
}
The previous revision/commit did not check one-use of an intermediate value that this transform re-uses.
When that value has another use, an existing transform will try to invert the transform here.
By adding one-use checks, we avoid the infinite loops seen with the earlier commit.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D124119
Existing condition for
fold icmp ugt (ashr X, ShAmtC), C --> icmp ugt X, ((C + 1) << ShAmtC) - 1
missed some boundary. It cause this fold don't work for some cases, and the
reason is due to signed number overflow.
Reviewed By: spatel
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D127188
The IV widening code currently asserts that terminators aren't SCEVable
-- however, this is not the case for invokes with a returned attribute.
As far as I can tell, this assertions is not necessary -- even if we
have a critical edge (the second test case), the trunc gets inserted
in a legal position.
Fixes https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/55925.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D127288
This reverts commit 266ea446ab747671eb6c736569c3c9c5f3c53d11.
The reasons for the revert have been addressed by cleaning up condition
handling in VPlan and properly marking VPBranchOnMaskRecipe as using
scalars.
The test case for the revert from D123720 has been added in 3d663308a5d.
Background:
When we construct coroutine frame, we would insert a dbg.declare
intrinsic for it:
```
%hdl = call void @llvm.coro.begin() ; would return coroutine handle
call void @llvm.dbg.declare(metadata ptr %hdl, metadata
![[DEBUG_VARIABLE: __coro_frame]], metadata !DIExpression())
```
And in the splitted coroutine, it looks like:
```
define void @coro_func.resume(ptr *hdl) {
entry.resume:
call void @llvm.dbg.declare(metadata ptr %hdl, metadata
![[DEBUG_VARIABLE: __coro_frame]], metadata !DIExpression())
}
```
And we would salvage the debug info by inserting a new alloca here:
```
define void @coro_func.resume(ptr %hdl) {
entry.resume:
%frame.debug = alloca ptr
call void @llvm.dbg.declare(metadata ptr %frame.debug, metadata
![[DEBUG_VARIABLE: __coro_frame]], metadata !DIExpression())
store ptr %hdl, %frame.debug
}
```
But now, the problem comes since the `dbg.declare` refers to the address
of that alloca instead of actual coroutine handle. I saw there are codes
to solve the problem but it only applies to complex expression only. I
feel if it is OK to relax the condition to make it work for
`__coro_frame`.
Reviewed By: jmorse
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D126277
InstCombine tries to rewrite
%prod = mul nsw i64 %X, Scale
%acc = add nsw i64 %prod, Offset
%0 = alloca i8, i64 %acc, align 4
%1 = bitcast i8* %0 to i32*
Use ( %1 )
into
%prod = mul nsw i64 %X, Scale/4
%acc = add nsw i64 %prod, Offset/4
%0 = alloca i32, i64 %acc, align 4
Use (%0)
But it assumes Scale is unsigned, and performs an unsigned division.
So we should bail out if Scale cannot be interpreted as an unsigned safely.
Reviewed By: nikic
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D126546
If we don't demand low bits and it is valid to pre-shift a constant:
(C2 >> X) << C1 --> (C2 << C1) >> X
https://alive2.llvm.org/ce/z/_UzTMP
This is the reverse-order shift sibling to 82040d414b3c ( D127122 ).
It seems likely that we would want to add this to the SDAG version of
the code too to keep it on par with IR.
c2eccc6 introduced a call to etHasNoUnsignedWrap which implicitly assumes that Inst is a OverflowingBinaryOperator. This is frequently untrue, but was not caught because cast<Ty>(X) has been broken, see https://discourse.llvm.org/t/cast-x-is-broken-implications-and-proposal-to-address/63033 for context.
I considered reverting this, but since doing so re-introduces a nasty miscompile of its own, I decided to fix forward instead.
I'll note that this is a particularly nasty form of the cast<Ty>(X) issue. Because the cast was succeeding unexpected, we were writing data to instructions which weren't OBOs. This could result in near arbitrary data or memory corruption. I'm a bit shocked that the sanitizers didn't find this TBH.
