InstCombine has a cast transform that matches a cast-of-select:
Orig = cast (Src = select Cond TV FV)
And tries to replace it with a select which has the cast folded in:
NewSel = select Cond (cast TV) (cast FV)
The combiner does RAUW(Orig, NewSel), so any debug values for Orig would
survive the transform. But debug values for Src would be lost.
This patch teaches InstCombine to replace all debug uses of Src with
NewSel (taking care of doing any necessary DIExpression rewriting).
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D49270
llvm-svn: 337310
We are using i8 for these tests, and shifting by 4,
which is exactly the half of i8.
But as it is seen from the proofs https://rise4fun.com/Alive/mgu
KeptBits = bitwidth(%x) - MaskedBits,
so with using shifts by 4, we are not really testing that
we actually properly handle the other cases with shifts not by half...
llvm-svn: 337208
Summary:
[[ https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=38149 | PR38149 ]]
As discussed in https://reviews.llvm.org/D49179#1158957 and later,
the IR for 'check for [no] signed truncation' pattern can be improved:
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/gBf
^ that pattern will be produced by Implicit Integer Truncation sanitizer,
https://reviews.llvm.org/D48958https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=21530
in signed case, therefore it is probably a good idea to improve it.
Proofs for this transform: https://rise4fun.com/Alive/mgu
This transform is surprisingly frustrating.
This does not deal with non-splat shift amounts, or with undef shift amounts.
I've outlined what i think the solution should be:
```
// Potential handling of non-splats: for each element:
// * if both are undef, replace with constant 0.
// Because (1<<0) is OK and is 1, and ((1<<0)>>1) is also OK and is 0.
// * if both are not undef, and are different, bailout.
// * else, only one is undef, then pick the non-undef one.
```
The DAGCombine will reverse this transform, see
https://reviews.llvm.org/D49266
Reviewers: spatel, craig.topper
Reviewed By: spatel
Subscribers: JDevlieghere, rkruppe, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D49320
llvm-svn: 337190
This bug was created by rL335258 because we used to always call instsimplify
after trying the associative folds. After that change it became possible
for subsequent folds to encounter unsimplified code (and potentially assert
because of it).
Instead of carrying changed state through instcombine, we can just return
immediately. This allows instsimplify to run, so we can continue assuming
that easy folds have already occurred.
llvm-svn: 336965
Summary:
This patch is crucial for proving equality laundered/stripped
pointers. eg:
bool foo(A *a) {
return a == std::launder(a);
}
Clang with -fstrict-vtable-pointers will emit something like:
define dso_local zeroext i1 @_Z3fooP1A(%struct.A* %a) {
entry:
%c = bitcast %struct.A* %a to i8*
%call = tail call i8* @llvm.launder.invariant.group.p0i8(i8* %c)
%0 = bitcast %struct.A* %a to i8*
%1 = tail call i8* @llvm.strip.invariant.group.p0i8(i8* %0)
%2 = tail call i8* @llvm.strip.invariant.group.p0i8(i8* %call)
%cmp = icmp eq i8* %1, %2
ret i1 %cmp
}
and because %2 can be replaced with @llvm.strip.invariant.group(%0)
and that %2 and %1 will produce the same value (because strip is readnone)
we can replace compare with true.
Reviewers: rsmith, hfinkel, majnemer, amharc, kuhar
Subscribers: llvm-commits, hiraditya
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D47423
llvm-svn: 336963
While that fold is clearly not happening [anymore],
we do now have separate test cases for these cases,
so we should be ok to slightly adjust these tests
to not potentially loose test coverage.
As suggested by Hiroshi Yamauchi in
https://reviews.llvm.org/D49179#1159345
llvm-svn: 336912
This converts them to what clang is now using for codegen. Unfortunately, there seem to be a few kinks to work out still. I'll try to address with follow up patches.
llvm-svn: 336871
Summary:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=38123
This pattern will be produced by Implicit Integer Truncation sanitizer,
https://reviews.llvm.org/D48958https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=21530
in unsigned case, therefore it is probably a good idea to improve it.
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/Rny
^ there are more opportunities for folds, i will follow up with them afterwards.
Caveat: this somehow exposes a missing opportunities
in `test/Transforms/InstCombine/icmp-logical.ll`
It seems, the problem is in `foldLogOpOfMaskedICmps()` in `InstCombineAndOrXor.cpp`.
But i'm not quite sure what is wrong, because it calls `getMaskedTypeForICmpPair()`,
which calls `decomposeBitTestICmp()` which should already work for these cases...
As @spatel notes in https://reviews.llvm.org/D49179#1158760,
that code is a rather complex mess, so we'll let it slide.
Reviewers: spatel, craig.topper
Reviewed By: spatel
Subscribers: yamauchi, majnemer, t.p.northover, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D49179
llvm-svn: 336834
isKnownNegation() is currently proposed as part of D48754,
but it could be used to make InstSimplify stronger independently
of any abs() improvements.
llvm-svn: 336822
This was originally intended with D48893, but as discussed there, we
have to make the folds safe from producing extra poison. This should
give the single binop folds the same capabilities as the existing
folds for 2-binops+shuffle.
LLVM binary opcode review: there are a total of 18 binops. There are 7
commutative binops (add, mul, and, or, xor, fadd, fmul) which we already
fold. We're able to fold 6 more opcodes with this patch (shl, lshr, ashr,
fdiv, udiv, sdiv). There are no folds for srem/urem/frem AFAIK. We don't
bother with sub/fsub with constant operand 1 because those are
canonicalized to add/fadd. 7 + 6 + 3 + 2 = 18.
llvm-svn: 336684
The case with 2 variables is more complicated than the case where
we eliminate the shuffle entirely because a shuffle with an undef
mask element creates an undef result.
I'm not aware of any current analysis/transform that recognizes that
undef propagating to a div/rem/shift, but we have to guard against
the possibility.
llvm-svn: 336668
getSafeVectorConstantForBinop() was calling getBinOpIdentity() assuming
that the constant we wanted was operand 1 (RHS). That's wrong, but I
don't think we could expose a bug or even a suboptimal fold from that
because the callers have other guards for any binop that would have
been affected.
llvm-svn: 336617
Summary:
Support for this option is needed for building Linux kernel.
This is a very frequently requested feature by kernel developers.
More details : https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/4/4/601
GCC option description for -fdelete-null-pointer-checks:
This Assume that programs cannot safely dereference null pointers,
and that no code or data element resides at address zero.
-fno-delete-null-pointer-checks is the inverse of this implying that
null pointer dereferencing is not undefined.
This feature is implemented in LLVM IR in this CL as the function attribute
"null-pointer-is-valid"="true" in IR (Under review at D47894).
The CL updates several passes that assumed null pointer dereferencing is
undefined to not optimize when the "null-pointer-is-valid"="true"
attribute is present.
Reviewers: t.p.northover, efriedma, jyknight, chandlerc, rnk, srhines, void, george.burgess.iv
Reviewed By: efriedma, george.burgess.iv
Subscribers: eraman, haicheng, george.burgess.iv, drinkcat, theraven, reames, sanjoy, xbolva00, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D47895
llvm-svn: 336613
