This patch attempts to peek through vectors based on the demanded bits/elt of a particular ISD::EXTRACT_VECTOR_ELT node, allowing us to avoid dependencies on ops that have no impact on the extract.
In particular this helps remove some unnecessary scalar->vector->scalar patterns.
The wasm shift patterns are annoying - @tlively has indicated that the wasm vector shift codegen are to be refactored in the near-term and isn't considered a major issue.
Reapplied after reversion at rL368660 due to PR42982 which was fixed at rGca7fdd41bda0.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D65887
This represents a more realistic version of the code being tested.
The cmov converter doesn't look at the code after the loop so
it doesn't matter for what's being tested.
But as noted in this twitter thread https://twitter.com/trav_downs/status/1213311159413161987
gcc can turn the previous MaxIndex code into the MaxValue code. So
returning the index makes it a distinct case.
This uses an alternative implementation of this conversion derived
from our v2i32->v2f32 handling. We can zero extend the v2i32 to
v2i64, or it with the bit representation of 2.0^52 which will give
us 2.0^52 plus the 32-bit integer since double's mantissa is 52 bits.
Then we just need to subtract 2.0^52 as a double and let the floating
point unit normalize the remaining bits into a valid double.
This is less instructions then our previous code, but does require
a port 5 shuffle for the zero extend or unpack.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D71945
When the "disable-tail-calls" attribute was added, checks were added for
it in various backends. Now this code has proliferated, and it is
something the target is responsible for checking. Move that
responsibility back to the ISels (fast, global, and SD).
There's no major functionality change, except for targets that never
implemented this check.
This LLVM attribute was originally added in
d9699bc7bdf0362173fcd256690f61a4d47429c2 (2015).
Reviewers: echristo, MaskRay
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D72118
The fold 'A - (A & (B - 1))' -> 'A & (0 - B)'
added in 8dab0a4a7d691f2704f1079538e0ef29548db159
is too specific. It should/can just be 'A - (A & B)' -> 'A & (~B)'
Even if we don't manage to fold `~` into B,
we have likely formed `ANDN` node.
Also, this way there's less similar-but-duplicate folds.
Name: X - (X & Y) -> X & (~Y)
%o = and i32 %X, %Y
%r = sub i32 %X, %o
=>
%n = xor i32 %Y, -1
%r = and i32 %X, %n
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/kOUl
See
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=44448https://reviews.llvm.org/D71499
The fold 'A - (A & (B - 1))' -> 'A & (0 - B)'
added in 8dab0a4a7d691f2704f1079538e0ef29548db159
is too specific. It should just be 'A - (A & B)' -> 'A & (~B)',
but we currently fail to sink that '~' into `(B - 1)`.
Name: ~(X - 1) -> (0 - X)
%o = add i32 %X, -1
%r = xor i32 %o, -1
=>
%r = sub i32 0, %X
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/rjU
The fold 'A - (A & (B - 1))' -> 'A & (0 - B)'
added in 8dab0a4a7d691f2704f1079538e0ef29548db159
is too specific. It should just be 'A - (A & B)' -> 'A & (~B)',
but we currently fail to sink that '~' into `(B - 1)`.
Name: ~(X - 1) -> (0 - X)
%o = add i32 %X, -1
%r = xor i32 %o, -1
=>
%r = sub i32 0, %X
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/rjU
While we do manage to fold integer-typed IR in middle-end,
we can't do that for the main motivational case of pointers.
There is @llvm.ptrmask() intrinsic which may or may not be helpful,
but i'm not sure it is fully considered canonical yet,
not everything is fully aware of it likely.
Name: PR44448 ptr - (ptr & C) -> ptr & (~C)
%bias = and i32 %ptr, C
%r = sub i32 %ptr, %bias
=>
%r = and i32 %ptr, ~C
See
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=44448https://reviews.llvm.org/D71499
Name: PR44448 ptr - (ptr & C) -> ptr & (~C)
%bias = and i32 %ptr, C
%r = sub i32 %ptr, %bias
=>
%r = and i32 %ptr, ~C
The main motivational pattern involes pointer-typed values,
so this transform can't really be done in middle-end.
See
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=44448https://reviews.llvm.org/D71499
While we do manage to fold integer-typed IR in middle-end,
we can't do that for the main motivational case of pointers.
There is @llvm.ptrmask() intrinsic which may or may not be helpful,
but i'm not sure it is fully considered canonical yet,
not everything is fully aware of it likely.
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/ZVdp
Name: ptr - (ptr & (alignment-1)) -> ptr & (0 - alignment)
%mask = add i64 %alignment, -1
%bias = and i64 %ptr, %mask
%r = sub i64 %ptr, %bias
=>
%highbitmask = sub i64 0, %alignment
%r = and i64 %ptr, %highbitmask
See
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=44448https://reviews.llvm.org/D71499
Summary:
We previously disabled this under fast math due to aggressive
reassociation by the machine combiner. But I think we can work
around this by using a FSUB instead of FADD for the first
operation.
This matches the similar algorithm we do for uint_to_fp i64->f64
in TargetLowering::expandUINT_TO_FP. If reassociation hasn't
been a problem for that, hopefully its not a problem here.
Reviewers: RKSimon, spatel, scanon
Reviewed By: spatel
Subscribers: hiraditya, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D71968
For now, we didn't set the default operation action for SIGN_EXTEND_INREG for
vector type, which is 0 by default, that is legal. However, most target didn't
have native instructions to support this opcode. It should be set as expand by
default, as what we did for ANY_EXTEND_VECTOR_INREG.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D70000
Summary:
After bugfix the undef value case here, we used more operations to implement inserting vxi1 sub vector into vXi1 vector, I optimize it by use less operations.
The history information at https://reviews.llvm.org/D68311
Reviewers: craig.topper, LuoYuanke, yubing, annita.zhang, pengfei, LiuChen3, RKSimon
Reviewed By: craig.topper
Subscribers: hiraditya, llvm-commits
Patch by Xiang Zhang (xiangzhangllvm)
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D71917
Commit 0f0330a78709 legalized these nodes on PPC without consideration of
unsafe math which means that we get inexact exceptions raised for nearbyint.
Since this doesn't conform to the standard, switch this legalization to depend
on unsafe fp math.
All FP0-6 operands should be removed by the FP stackifier. By
removing these we fix the machine verifier error in PR39437.
I've also made it so that only defs are counted for STReturns
which removes what I think were extra stack cleanup instructions.
And I've removed the regcall assert because it was checking the
attributes of the caller, but here we're concerned with the
attributes of the callee. But I don't know how to get that
information from this level.
The NoFPExcept bit in SDNodeFlags currently defaults to true, unlike all
other such flags. This is a problem, because it implies that all code that
transforms SDNodes without copying flags can introduce a correctness bug,
not just a missed optimization.
This patch changes the default to false. This makes it necessary to move
setting the (No)FPExcept flag for constrained intrinsics from the
visitConstrainedIntrinsic routine to the generic visit routine at the
place where the other flags are set, or else the intersectFlagsWith
call would erase the NoFPExcept flag again.
In order to avoid making non-strict FP code worse, whenever
SelectionDAGISel::SelectCodeCommon matches on a set of orignal nodes
none of which can raise FP exceptions, it will preserve this property
on all results nodes generated, by setting the NoFPExcept flag on
those result nodes that would otherwise be considered as raising
an FP exception.
To check whether or not an SD node should be considered as raising
an FP exception, the following logic applies:
- For machine nodes, check the mayRaiseFPException property of
the underlying MI instruction
- For regular nodes, check isStrictFPOpcode
- For target nodes, check a newly introduced isTargetStrictFPOpcode
The latter is implemented by reserving a range of target opcodes,
similarly to how memory opcodes are identified. (Note that there a
bit of a quirk in identifying target nodes that are both memory nodes
and strict FP nodes. To simplify the logic, right now all target memory
nodes are automatically also considered strict FP nodes -- this could
be fixed by adding one more range.)
Reviewed By: craig.topper
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D71841
Some of the instructions in these tests were technically invalid
combinations (using ARM opcodes in Thumb mode, for example). Update the
targets and the instructions used to be more correct.
Summary:
Currently 32 bit unpacked offsets are passed as nxv2i64. However, as
pointed out in https://reviews.llvm.org/D71074, using nxv2i32 instead
would improve consistency with:
* how other arguments are treated
* how scatter stores are implemented
This patch makes sure that 32 bit unpacked offsets are passes as nxv2i32
instead of nxv2i64.
Reviewers: sdesmalen, efriedma
Subscribers: tschuett, kristof.beyls, hiraditya, rkruppe, psnobl, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D71724
xray-empty-firstmbb.mir does not test the intended code path. Change
xray-instruction-threshold to 0 to exercise the code path.
Delete xray-empty-function.mir . Empty MachineFunction does not work.
Various passes (e.g. MachineDominatorTree) assume the presence of an
entry block.
clang/lib/CodeGen/CodeGenModule performs the -mpie-copy-relocations
check and sets dso_local on applicable global variables. We don't need
to duplicate the work in TargetMachine shouldAssumeDSOLocal.
Verified that -mpie-copy-relocations can still emit PC relative
relocations for external variable accesses.
clang -target x86_64 -fpie -mpie-copy-relocations -c => R_X86_64_PC32
clang -target aarch64 -fpie -mpie-copy-relocations -c => R_AARCH64_ADR_PREL_PG_HI21+R_AARCH64_LDST64_ABS_LO12_NC
This was increasing the number of instructions when fsub was legalized
on AMDGPU with no signed zeros enabled. This fold should be guarded by
hasOneUse, and I don't think getNode should be doing that. The same
fold is already done as a regular combine through isNegatibleForFree.
This does require duplicating, even though isNegatibleForFree does
this combine already (and properly checks hasOneUse) to avoid one PPC
regression. In the regression, the outer fneg has nsz but the fsub
operand does not. isNegatibleForFree only sees the operand, and
doesn't see it's used from a nsz context. A nsz parameter needs to be
added and threaded through isNegatibleForFree to avoid this.
If we just subtracted 1 and are checking if the result is -1. We can use the carry flag from the ADD instead of an explicit CMP. I'm using the same checks for the add users as EmitTest.
Fixes one case from PR44412
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D72019
