As noticed on D92965, we needed to simplify the prefixes to ensure all RUNs were properly covered.
We should never have a target with BMI2 without BMI1, so use that as the 'BMI level' and then check with/without TBM (all TBM targets have at least BMI1).
For i32 and i64 cases, X86ISD::SHLD/SHRD are close enough to ISD::FSHL/FSHR that we can use them directly, we just need to account for the operand commutation for SHRD.
The i16 SHLD/SHRD case is annoying as the shift amount is modulo-32 (vs funnel shift modulo-16), so I've added X86ISD::FSHL/FSHR equivalents, which matches the generic implementation in all other terms.
Something I'm slightly concerned with is that ISD::FSHL/FSHR legality is controlled by the Subtarget.isSHLDSlow() feature flag - we don't normally use non-ISA features for this but it allows the DAG combines to continue to operate after legalization in a lot more cases.
The X86 *bits.ll changes are all affected by the same issue - we now have a "FSHR(-1,-1,amt) -> ROTR(-1,amt) -> (-1)" simplification that reduces the dependencies enough for the branch fall through code to mess up.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D75748
Summary:
The one thing of note here is that the 'bitwidth' constant (32/64) was previously pessimistic.
Given `x & (-1 >> (C - z))`, we were taking `C` to be `bitwidth(x)`, but in reality
we want `(-1 >> (C - z))` pattern to mean "low z bits must be all-ones".
And for that, `C` should be `bitwidth(-1 >> (C - z))`, i.e. of the shift operation itself.
Last pattern D does not seem to exhibit any of these truncation issues.
Although it has the opposite problem - if we extract low bits (no shift) from i64,
and then truncate to i32, then we fail to shrink this 64-bit extraction into 32-bit extraction.
Reviewers: RKSimon, craig.topper, spatel
Reviewed By: RKSimon
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D62806
llvm-svn: 364419
Summary:
(Not so) boringly identical to pattern a (D62786)
Not yet sure how do deal with the last pattern c.
Reviewers: RKSimon, craig.topper, spatel
Reviewed By: RKSimon
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D62793
llvm-svn: 364418
Summary:
Finally tying up loose ends here.
The problem is quite simple:
If we have pattern `(x >> start) & (1 << nbits) - 1`,
and then truncate the result, that truncation will be propagated upwards,
into the `and`. And that isn't currently handled.
I'm only fixing pattern `a` here,
the same fix will be needed for patterns `b`/`c` too.
I *think* this isn't missing any extra legality checks,
since we only look past truncations. Similary, i don't think
we can get any other truncation there other than i64->i32.
Reviewers: craig.topper, RKSimon, spatel
Reviewed By: craig.topper
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D62786
llvm-svn: 364417
Summary:
Noticed while looking at D56052.
```
// The 'control' of BEXTR has the pattern of:
// [15...8 bit][ 7...0 bit] location
// [ bit count][ shift] name
// I.e. 0b000000011'00000001 means (x >> 0b1) & 0b11
```
I.e. we do not care about any of the bits aside from the low 16 bits.
So there is no point in doing the `slh`,`or` in 64 bits,
let's just do everything in 32 bits, and anyext if needed.
We could do that in 16 even, but we intentionally don't
zext to i16 (longer encoding IIRC),
so i'm guessing the same applies here.
Reviewers: craig.topper, andreadb, RKSimon
Reviewed By: craig.topper
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D56715
llvm-svn: 353073
@bextr64_32_b1 is extracted from hotpath of real-world code
(RawSpeed BitStream<>::peekBitsNoFill()) after `clang -O3`.
@bextr64_32_b2/@bextr64_32_b0 is the same pattern,
but with trunc done last, showing how i think it can be handled:
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/K4Bhttps://rise4fun.com/Alive/qC9
It is possible that middle-end should do some of this, too.
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=36419
llvm-svn: 349998
This is effectively re-committing the changes from:
rL347917 (D54640)
rL348195 (D55126)
...which were effectively reverted here:
rL348604
...because the code had a bug that could induce infinite looping
or eventual out-of-memory compilation.
The bug was that this code did not guard against transforming
opaque constants. More details are in the post-commit mailing
list thread for r347917. A reduced test for that is included
in the x86 bool-math.ll file. (I wasn't able to reduce a PPC
backend test for this, but it was almost the same pattern.)
Original commit message for r347917:
The motivating case for this is shown in:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=32023
and the corresponding rot16.ll regression tests.
Because x86 scalar shift amounts are i8 values, we can end up with trunc-binop-trunc
sequences that don't get folded in IR.
As the TODO comments suggest, there will be regressions if we extend this (for x86,
we mostly seem to be missing LEA opportunities, but there are likely vector folds
missing too). I think those should be considered existing bugs because this is the
same transform that we do as an IR canonicalization in instcombine. We just need
more tests to make those visible independent of this patch.
llvm-svn: 348706
As discussed in the post-commit thread of r347917, this
transform is fighting with an existing transform causing
an infinite loop or out-of-memory, so this is effectively
reverting r347917 and its follow-up r348195 while we
investigate the bug.
llvm-svn: 348604
The motivating case for this is shown in:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=32023
and the corresponding rot16.ll regression tests.
Because x86 scalar shift amounts are i8 values, we can end up with trunc-binop-trunc
sequences that don't get folded in IR.
As the TODO comments suggest, there will be regressions if we extend this (for x86,
we mostly seem to be missing LEA opportunities, but there are likely vector folds
missing too). I think those should be considered existing bugs because this is the
same transform that we do as an IR canonicalization in instcombine. We just need
more tests to make those visible independent of this patch.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D54640
llvm-svn: 347917
Summary:
As discussed in previous review, and noted in the FIXME, if `X` is actually an `lshr Y, Z` (logical!),
we can fold the `Z` into 'control`, and let the `BEXTR` do this too.
We could just insert those 8 bits of shift amount into control,
but it is better to instead zero-extend them, and 'or' them in place.
We can only do this for `lshr`, not `ashr`, because we do not know that the mask cover only the bits of `Y`,
and not any of the sign-extended bits.
The obvious question is, is this actually legal to do?
I believe it is. Relevant quotes, from `Intel® 64 and IA-32 Architectures Software Developer’s Manual`, `BEXTR — Bit Field Extract`:
* `Bit 7:0 of the second source operand specifies the starting bit position of bit extraction.`
* `A START value exceeding the operand size will not extract any bits from the second source operand.`
* `Only bit positions up to (OperandSize -1) of the first source operand are extracted.`
* `All higher order bits in the destination operand (starting at bit position LENGTH) are zeroed.`
* `The destination register is cleared if no bits are extracted.`
FIXME: if we can do this, i wonder if we should prefer `BEXTR` over `BZHI` in such cases.
Reviewers: RKSimon, craig.topper, spatel, andreadb
Reviewed By: RKSimon, craig.topper, andreadb
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D54095
llvm-svn: 347048
Summary:
Because of the D48768, that pattern is always unfolded into pattern d,
thus we had no test coverage.
Reviewers: RKSimon, craig.topper
Reviewed By: craig.topper
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D53574
llvm-svn: 345583
This initially landed in rL345014, but was reverted in rL345017
due to sanitizer-x86_64-linux-fast buildbot failure in
check-lld (ELF/relocatable-versioned.s) test.
While i'm not yet quite sure what is the problem, one obvious
thing here is that extra truncation roundtrip.
Maybe that's it? If not, will re-revert.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D53521
llvm-svn: 345027
Summary:
Continuation of D52348.
We also get the `c) x & (-1 >> (32 - y))` pattern here, because of the D48768.
I will add extra-uses into those tests and follow-up with a patch to handle those patterns too.
Reviewers: RKSimon, craig.topper
Reviewed By: craig.topper
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D53521
llvm-svn: 345014
Summary:
Trivial continuation of D52304.
While this pattern is not canonical, we do select it in the BZHI case,
so this should not be any different.
Reviewers: RKSimon, craig.topper, spatel
Reviewed By: RKSimon
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D52348
llvm-svn: 344902
This is an alternative to D53080 since I think using a BEXTR for a shifted mask is definitely an improvement when the shl can be absorbed into addressing mode. The other cases I'm less sure about.
We already have several tricks for handling an and of a shift in address matching. This adds a new case for BEXTR.
I've moved the BEXTR matching code back to X86ISelDAGToDAG to allow it to match. I suppose alternatively we could directly emit a X86ISD::BEXTR node that isel could pattern match. But I'm trying to view BEXTR matching as an isel concern so DAG combine can see 'and' and 'shift' operations that are well understood. We did lose a couple cases from tbm_patterns.ll, but I think there are ways to recover that.
I've also put back the manual load folding code in matchBEXTRFromAnd that I removed a few months ago in r324939. This gives us some more freedom to make decisions based on the ability to fold a load. I haven't done anything with that yet.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D53126
llvm-svn: 344270
Summary:
As discussed in D48491, we can't really do this in the TableGen,
since we need to produce *two* instructions. This only implements
one single pattern. The other 3 patterns will be in follow-ups.
I'm not sure yet if we want to also fuse shift into here
(i.e `(x >> start) & ...`)
Reviewers: RKSimon, craig.topper, spatel
Reviewed By: craig.topper
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D52304
llvm-svn: 344224
Summary:
This function turns (X >> C1) & C2 into a BMI BEXTR or TBM BEXTRI instruction. For BMI BEXTR we have to materialize an immediate into a register to feed to the BEXTR instruction.
The BMI BEXTR instruction is 2 uops on Intel CPUs. It looks like on SKL its one port 0/6 uop and one port 1/5 uop. Despite what Agner's tables say. I know one of the uops is a regular shift uop so it would have to go through the port 0/6 shifter unit. So that's the same or worse execution wise than the shift+and which is one 0/6 uop and one 0/1/5/6 uop. The move immediate into register is an additional 0/1/5/6 uop.
For now I've limited this transform to AMD CPUs which have a single uop BEXTR. If may also might make sense if we can fold a load or if the and immediate is larger than 32-bits and can't be encoded as a sign extended 32-bit value or if LICM or CSE can hoist the move immediate and share it. But we'd need to look more carefully at that. In the regression I looked at it doesn't look load folding or large immediates were occurring so the regression isn't caused by the loss of those. So we could try to be smarter here if we find a compelling case.
Reviewers: RKSimon, spatel, lebedev.ri, andreadb
Reviewed By: RKSimon
Subscribers: llvm-commits, andreadb, RKSimon
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D52570
llvm-svn: 343399
It would be best to introduce ISD::BitFieldExtract,
because clearly more than one backend faces the same problem.
But for now let's solve this in the x86-specific DAG combine.
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=38938
llvm-svn: 342880
Summary: Also, adjust the check prefixes so that we actually get to check the BMI1-only-case.
Reviewers: craig.topper, RKSimon, spatel, javed.absar
Reviewed By: RKSimon
Subscribers: kristof.beyls, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D48490
llvm-svn: 342623
