The sqrt case is faster and we already do this for the case where
the exponent is 0.25. This adds the 0.75 case which is also not
sensitive to signed zeros.
Patch by Whitney Tsang (Whitney)
Differential revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D57434
llvm-svn: 353557
Move the (add (umax X, C), -C) --> (usubsat X, C) X86 combine into generic DAGCombiner
First of a number of saturated arithmetic folds that can be moved out of X86-specific code for PR40111.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D57754
llvm-svn: 353457
I noticed that we are missing this canonicalization in IR:
rL352515
...and then realized that we don't get this right in SDAG either,
so this has to be fixed first regardless of what we choose to do in IR.
The existing fold was limited to scalars and using the wrong predicate
to guard the transform. We have a boolean contents TLI query that can
be used to decide which direction to fold.
This may eventually lead back to the problems/question in:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=40486
...but it makes no difference to that yet.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D57401
llvm-svn: 353433
Summary:
If the index isn't constant, this transform inserts a multiply and an add on the index to calculating the base pointer for a scalar load. But we still create a memory operand with an offset of 0 and the size of the scalar access. But the access is really to an unknown offset within the original access size.
This can cause the machine scheduler to incorrectly calculate dependencies between this load and other accesses. In the case we saw, there was a 32 byte vector store that was split into two 16 byte stores, one with offset 0 and one with offset 16. The size of the memory operand for both was 16. The scheduler correctly detected the alias with the offset 0 store, but not the offset 16 store.
This patch discards the pointer info so we don't incorrectly detect aliasing. I wasn't sure if we could keep using the original offset and size without risking some other transform on the load changing the size.
I tried to reduce a test case, but there's still a lot of memory operations needed to get the scheduler to do the bad reordering. So it looked pretty fragile to maintain.
Reviewers: efriedma
Reviewed By: efriedma
Subscribers: arphaman, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D57616
llvm-svn: 353124
Noticed while investigating PR40483, and fixes the basic test case from the bug - but not a more general case.
We're pretty weak at dealing with ADD/SUB combines compared to the SimplifyAssociativeOrCommutative/SimplifyUsingDistributiveLaws abilities that InstCombine can manage.
llvm-svn: 353044
We already have the getConstantOperandVal helper which returns a uint64_t, but along comes the fuzzer and inserts a i128 -1 constant or something and the whole thing asserts.......
I've updated a few obvious cases, and tried to make use of the const reference where possible, but there's more to do. A number of existing oss-fuzz tickets should be fixed if we start using APInt and perform value clamping where necessary.
llvm-svn: 352961
This patch fixes pr39098.
For the attached test case, CombineZExtLogicopShiftLoad can optimize it to
t25: i64 = Constant<1099511627775>
t35: i64 = Constant<0>
t0: ch = EntryToken
t57: i64,ch = load<(load 4 from `i40* undef`, align 8), zext from i32> t0, undef:i64, undef:i64
t58: i64 = srl t57, Constant:i8<1>
t60: i64 = and t58, Constant:i64<524287>
t29: ch = store<(store 5 into `i40* undef`, align 8), trunc to i40> t57:1, t60, undef:i64, undef:i64
But later visitANDLike transforms it to
t25: i64 = Constant<1099511627775>
t35: i64 = Constant<0>
t0: ch = EntryToken
t57: i64,ch = load<(load 4 from `i40* undef`, align 8), zext from i32> t0, undef:i64, undef:i64
t61: i32 = truncate t57
t63: i32 = srl t61, Constant:i8<1>
t64: i32 = and t63, Constant:i32<524287>
t65: i64 = zero_extend t64
t58: i64 = srl t57, Constant:i8<1>
t60: i64 = and t58, Constant:i64<524287>
t29: ch = store<(store 5 into `i40* undef`, align 8), trunc to i40> t57:1, t60, undef:i64, undef:i64
And it triggers CombineZExtLogicopShiftLoad again, causes a dead loop.
Both forms should generate same instructions, CombineZExtLogicopShiftLoad generated IR looks cleaner. But it looks more difficult to prevent visitANDLike to do the transform, so I prevent CombineZExtLogicopShiftLoad to do the transform if the ZExt is free.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D57491
llvm-svn: 352792
While dangling nodes will eventually be pruned when they are
considered, leaving them disables combines requiring single-use.
Reviewers: Carrot, spatel, craig.topper, RKSimon, efriedma
Subscribers: hiraditya, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D57520
llvm-svn: 352784
This extends the existing transform for:
add X, 0/1 --> sub X, 0/-1
...to allow the sibling subtraction fold.
This pattern could regress with the proposed change in D57401.
llvm-svn: 352680
This is the sibling fold for insert-of-insert that was added with D56604.
Now that we have x86 shuffle narrowing (D57156), this change shows improvements for
lots of AVX512 reduction code (not sure that we would ever expect extract-of-extract otherwise).
There's a small regression in some of the partial-permute tests (extracting followed by splat).
That is tracked by PR40500:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=40500
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D57336
llvm-svn: 352528
The current check in CombineToPreIndexedLoadStore is too
conversative, preventing a pre-indexed store when the base pointer
is a predecessor of the value being stored. Instead, we should check
the pointer operand of the store.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D56719
llvm-svn: 351933
vecbo (insertsubv undef, X, Z), (insertsubv undef, Y, Z) --> insertsubv VecC, (vecbo X, Y), Z
This is another step in generic vector narrowing. It's also a step towards more horizontal op
formation specifically for x86 (although we still failed to match those in the affected tests).
The scalarization cases are also not optimal (we should be scalarizing those), but it's still
an improvement to use a narrower vector op when we know part of the result must be constant
because both inputs are undef in some vector lanes.
I think a similar match but checking for a constant operand might help some of the cases in
D51553.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D56875
llvm-svn: 351825
The regression test is reduced from the example shown in D56281.
This does raise a question as noted in the test file: do we want
to handle this pattern? I don't have a motivating example for
that on x86 yet, but it seems like we could have that pattern
there too, so we could avoid the back-and-forth using a shuffle.
llvm-svn: 351753
to reflect the new license.
We understand that people may be surprised that we're moving the header
entirely to discuss the new license. We checked this carefully with the
Foundation's lawyer and we believe this is the correct approach.
Essentially, all code in the project is now made available by the LLVM
project under our new license, so you will see that the license headers
include that license only. Some of our contributors have contributed
code under our old license, and accordingly, we have retained a copy of
our old license notice in the top-level files in each project and
repository.
llvm-svn: 351636
Similar to D55073. Without this change, the DAG combiner crashes on code
with more than 64k of stores in a single basic block that form parallelizable
chains.
No test case, as it would be very IR file.
Reviewed By: RKSimon
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D56740
llvm-svn: 351571
ReduceLoadWidth can trigger using a shifted mask is used and this
requires that the function return a shl node to correct for the
offset. However, the way that this was implemented meant that the
returned result could be an existing node, which would be incorrect.
This fixes the method of inserting the new node and replacing uses.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D50432
llvm-svn: 351310
The motivating case for this is shown in the first regression test. We are
transferring to scalar and back rather than just zero-extending with 'vpmovzxdq'.
That's a special-case for a more general pattern as shown here. In all tests,
we're avoiding the vector-scalar-vector moves in favor of vector ops.
We aren't producing optimal shuffle code in some cases though, so the patch is
limited to reduce regressions.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D56281
llvm-svn: 351198
This pattern:
t33: v8i32 = insert_subvector undef:v8i32, t35, Constant:i64<0>
t21: v16i32 = insert_subvector undef:v16i32, t33, Constant:i64<0>
...shows up in PR33758:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=33758
...although this patch doesn't make any difference to the final result on that yet.
In the affected tests here, it looks like it just makes RA wiggle. But we might
as well squash this to prevent it interfering with other pattern-matching.
Differential Revision:
https://reviews.llvm.org/D56604
llvm-svn: 351008
As noted in PR39973 and D55558:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=39973
...this is a partial implementation of a fold that we do as an IR canonicalization in instcombine:
// extelt (binop X, Y), Index --> binop (extelt X, Index), (extelt Y, Index)
We want to have this in the DAG too because as we can see in some of the test diffs (reductions),
the pattern may not be visible in IR.
Given that this is already an IR canonicalization, any backend that would prefer a vector op over
a scalar op is expected to already have the reverse transform in DAG lowering (not sure if that's
a realistic expectation though). The transform is limited with a TLI hook because there's an
existing transform in CodeGenPrepare that tries to do the opposite transform.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D55722
llvm-svn: 350354
Currently we expand the two nodes separately. This gives DAG combiner an opportunity to optimize the expanded sequence taking into account only one set of users. When we expand the other node we'll create the expansion again, but might not be able to optimize it the same way. So the nodes won't CSE and we'll have two similarish sequences in the same basic block. By expanding both nodes at the same time we'll avoid prematurely optimizing the expansion until both the division and remainder have been replaced.
Improves the test case from PR38217. There may be additional opportunities after this.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D56145
llvm-svn: 350239
If x has multiple sign bits than it doesn't matter which one we extend from so we can sext from x's msb instead.
The X86 setcc-combine.ll changes are a little weird. It appears we ended up with a (sext_inreg (aext (trunc (extractelt)))) after type legalization. The sext_inreg+aext now gets optimized by this combine to leave (sext (trunc (extractelt))). Then we visit the trunc before we visit the sext. This ends up changing the truncate to an extractvectorelt from a bitcasted vector. I have a follow up patch to fix this.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D56156
llvm-svn: 350235
It's dangerous to knowingly create an illegal vector type
no matter what stage of combining we're in.
This prevents the missed folding/scalarization seen in:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=40146
llvm-svn: 350034
trunc (add X, C ) --> add (trunc X), C'
If we're throwing away the top bits of an 'add' instruction, do it in the narrow destination type.
This makes the truncate-able opcode list identical to the sibling transform done in IR (in instcombine).
This change used to show regressions for x86, but those are gone after D55494.
This gets us closer to deleting the x86 custom function (combineTruncatedArithmetic)
that does almost the same thing.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D55866
llvm-svn: 350006
This saves materializing the immediate. The additional forms are less
common (they don't usually show up for bitfield insert/extract), but
they're still relevant.
I had to add a new target hook to prevent DAGCombine from reversing the
transform. That isn't the only possible way to solve the conflict, but
it seems straightforward enough.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D55630
llvm-svn: 349857
Now that SimplifyDemandedBits/SimplifyDemandedVectorElts is simplifying vector elements, we're seeing more constant BUILD_VECTOR containing undefs.
This patch provides opt-in support for UNDEF elements in matchBinaryPredicate, passing NULL instead of the result ConstantSDNode* argument.
I've updated the (or (and X, c1), c2) -> (and (or X, c2), c1|c2) fold to demonstrate its use, which I believe is safe for undef cases.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D55822
llvm-svn: 349629
As described on PR40091, we have several places where zext (and zext_vector_inreg) fold an undef input into an undef output. For zero extensions this is incorrect as the output should guarantee to least have the new upper bits set to zero.
SimplifyDemandedVectorElts is the worst offender (and its the most likely to cause new undefs to appear) but DAGCombiner's tryToFoldExtendOfConstant has a similar issue.
Thanks to @dmgreen for catching this.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D55883
llvm-svn: 349625
The transform performs a bitwise logic op in a wider type followed by
truncate when both inputs are truncated from the same source type:
logic_op (truncate x), (truncate y) --> truncate (logic_op x, y)
There are a bunch of other checks that should prevent doing this when
it might be harmful.
We already do this transform for scalars in this spot. The vector
limitation was shared with a check for the case when the operands are
extended. I'm not sure if that limit is needed either, but that would
be a separate patch.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D55448
llvm-svn: 349303
