When pushing a sub nsw 0, %x negation into an expression, try to
preserve the nsw flag for the cases where this is possible. Do this
by passing the flag through recursive Negator::negate() calls.
Proofs: https://alive2.llvm.org/ce/z/oRPNcY
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D158510
This patch mechanically replaces None with std::nullopt where the
compiler would warn if None were deprecated. The intent is to reduce
the amount of manual work required in migrating from Optional to
std::optional.
This is part of an effort to migrate from llvm::Optional to
std::optional:
https://discourse.llvm.org/t/deprecating-llvm-optional-x-hasvalue-getvalue-getvalueor/63716
This stops Negator from transforming:
`C1 - shl X, C2 --> mul X, (1<<C2) + C1`
...in the general case. There does not seem to be any analysis
benefit to using mul in IR, and there's definitely downside in
codegen (particularly when the multiply has to be expanded).
If `C1` is 0, then there's a stronger argument that the single
mul is a better canonicalization than negate-of-shl, but we may
want to remove that too.
This was noted as a potential conflict for D133667.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D134310
The motivating test is reduced from:
https://llvm.org/PR52261
Note that the more general problem of folding any binop into a multi-use
select of constants is still there. We need to ease the restriction in
InstCombinerImpl::FoldOpIntoSelect() to catch those. But these examples
never reach that code because Negator exclusively handles negation
patterns within visitSub().
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D112657
This patch
- Adds containsPoisonElement that checks existence of poison in constant vector elements,
- Renames containsUndefElement to containsUndefOrPoisonElement to clarify its behavior & updates its uses properly
With this patch, isGuaranteedNotToBeUndefOrPoison's tests w.r.t constant vectors are added because its analysis is improved.
Thanks!
Reviewed By: nikic
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D94053
This relaxes one-use restriction on that `sub` fold,
since apparently the addition of Negator broke
preexisting `C-(C2-X) --> X+(C-C2)` (with C=0) fold.
In some cases, we can negate instruction if only one of it's operands
negates. Previously, we assumed that constants would have been
canonicalized to RHS already, but that isn't guaranteed to happen,
because of InstCombine worklist visitation order,
as the added test (previously-hanging) shows.
So if we only need to negate a single operand,
we should ensure ourselves that we try constant operand first.
Do that by re-doing the complexity sorting ourselves,
when we actually care about it.
Fixes https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=47752
We were errneously only doing that for old-style abs/nabs,
but we have no such legality check on the condition of the select.
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/xBHS
This was the most obvious regression in
f5df5cd5586ae9cfb2d9e53704dfc76f47aff149.f5df5cd5586ae9cfb2d9e53704dfc76f47aff149
We really don't want to do this if the original/outermost subtraction
isn't a negation, and therefore doesn't go away - just sinking negation
isn't a win. We are actually appear to be missing folds so hoist it.
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/tiVe
This reverts commit ac70b37a00dc02bd8923e0a4602d26be4581c570
which reverted commit 8aeb2fe13a4100b4c2e78d6ef75119304100cb1f
because codegen tests got broken and i needed time to investigate.
This shows some regressions in tests, but they are all around GEP's,
so i'm not really sure how important those are.
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/1Gn
For a long time, the InstCombine pass handled target specific
intrinsics. Having target specific code in general passes was noted as
an area for improvement for a long time.
D81728 moves most target specific code out of the InstCombine pass.
Applying the target specific combinations in an extra pass would
probably result in inferior optimizations compared to the current
fixed-point iteration, therefore the InstCombine pass resorts to newly
introduced functions in the TargetTransformInfo when it encounters
unknown intrinsics.
The patch should not have any effect on generated code (under the
assumption that code never uses intrinsics from a foreign target).
This introduces three new functions:
TargetTransformInfo::instCombineIntrinsic
TargetTransformInfo::simplifyDemandedUseBitsIntrinsic
TargetTransformInfo::simplifyDemandedVectorEltsIntrinsic
A few target specific parts are left in the InstCombine folder, where
it makes sense to share code. The largest left-over part in
InstCombineCalls.cpp is the code shared between arm and aarch64.
This allows to move about 3000 lines out from InstCombine to the targets.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D81728
I don't have any testcases showing it happening,
and i haven't succeeded in creating one,
but i'm also not positive it can't ever happen,
and i recall having something that looked like
that in the very beginning of Negator creation.
But since we now already have a negation cache,
we can now detect such cases practically for free.
Let's do so instead of "relying" on stack overflow :D
It is possible that we can try to negate the same value multiple times.
For example, PHI nodes may happen to have multiple incoming values
(all of which must be the same value) for the same incoming basic block.
It may happen that we try to negate such a PHI node, and succeed,
and that might result in having now-different incoming values..
To avoid that, and in general to reduce the amount of duplicated
work we might be doing, let's introduce a cache where
we'll track results of negating each value.
The added test was previously failing -verify after -instcombine.
Fixes https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=46362
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
