Please refer to
https://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2021-September/152440.html
(and that whole thread.)
TLDR: the original patch had no prior RFC, yet it had some changes that
really need a proper RFC discussion. It won't be productive to discuss
such an RFC, once it's actually posted, while said patch is already
committed, because that introduces bias towards already-committed stuff,
and the tree is potentially in broken state meanwhile.
While the end result of discussion may lead back to the current design,
it may also not lead to the current design.
Therefore i take it upon myself
to revert the tree back to last known good state.
This reverts commit 4c4093e6e39fe6601f9c95a95a6bc242ef648cd5.
This reverts commit 0a2b1ba33ae6dcaedb81417f7c4cc714f72a5968.
This reverts commit d9873711cb03ac7aedcaadcba42f82c66e962e6e.
This reverts commit 791006fb8c6fff4f33c33cb513a96b1d3f94c767.
This reverts commit c22b64ef66f7518abb6f022fcdfd86d16c764caf.
This reverts commit 72ebcd3198327da12804305bda13d9b7088772a8.
This reverts commit 5fa6039a5fc1b6392a3c9a3326a76604e0cb1001.
This reverts commit 9efda541bfbd145de90f7db38d935db6246dc45a.
This reverts commit 94d3ff09cfa8d7aecf480e54da9a5334e262e76b.
isFreeToInvert allows min/max with 'not' on both operands,
so easing the argument restriction catches the case where
that operand has one use.
We already handle the sub-patterns when there are less uses:
https://alive2.llvm.org/ce/z/8Jatm_
...but this is another step towards parity with the
equivalent icmp+select idioms ( D98152 ).
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D109059
This mimics the code for the corresponding cmp-select idiom.
This also prevents an infinite loop because isFreeToInvert
does not match constant expressions.
So this patch solves the same problem as D108814 and obsoletes
it, but my main motivation is to enhance the pattern matching
to allow more invertible ops. That change will be a follow-up
patch on top of this one.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D109058
The existing code was unquestionably wrong - it looked at one
fneg and ignored the other 2 instructions.
It was also untested, so it didn't make the list of bugs
flagged by Alive2.
This is an unusual propagation, but Alive2 agress that we
can intersect the fnegs and union that with the select,
then apply the results to both new instructions:
https://alive2.llvm.org/ce/z/SF8_dt
We cannot leak any equivalency information by comparing against null
since null never has virtual metadata associated with it (when null is
not a valid dereferenceable pointer).
Instcombine seems to make sure that a null will be on the RHS, so we
don't have to check both operands.
This fixes a missed optimization in llvm-test-suite's MultiSource lambda
benchmark under -fstrict-vtable-pointers.
Reviewed By: Prazek
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D108734
In LLVM IR, `AlignmentBitfieldElementT` is 5-bit wide
But that means that the maximal alignment exponent is `(1<<5)-2`,
which is `30`, not `29`. And indeed, alignment of `1073741824`
roundtrips IR serialization-deserialization.
While this doesn't seem all that important, this doubles
the maximal supported alignment from 512MiB to 1GiB,
and there's actually one noticeable use-case for that;
On X86, the huge pages can have sizes of 2MiB and 1GiB (!).
So while this doesn't add support for truly huge alignments,
which i think we can easily-ish do if wanted, i think this adds
zero-cost support for a not-trivially-dismissable case.
I don't believe we need any upgrade infrastructure,
and since we don't explicitly record the IR version,
we don't need to bump one either.
As @craig.topper speculates in D108661#2963519,
this might be an artificial limit imposed by the original implementation
of the `getAlignment()` functions.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D108661
This is a re-try of 3aa009cc87e3 which was reverted at
9577fac0fddf because it caused an infinite loop.
For the extra test case, either re-ordering the transforms
or adding the extra clause to avoid sub-of-sub is enough
to prevent the infinite compile, but I'm doing both to be
safer.
Original commit message:
The motivation was to get min/max intrinsics to parity
with cmp+select idioms, but this unlocks a few more
folds because isFreeToInvert recognizes add/sub with
constants too.
In the min/max example, we have too many extra uses
for smaller folds to improve things, but this fold
is able to eliminate uses even though we can't reduce
the number of instructions.
Reverted (manually due to merge conflicts) while regressions reported on PR51540 are investigated
As noticed on D106352, after we've folded "(select C, (gep Ptr, Idx), Ptr) -> (gep Ptr, (select C, Idx, 0))" if the inner Ptr was also a (now one use) gep we could then merge the geps, using the sum of the indices instead.
I've limited this to basic 2-op geps - a more general case further down InstCombinerImpl.visitGetElementPtrInst doesn't have the one-use limitation but only creates the add if it can be created via SimplifyAddInst.
https://alive2.llvm.org/ce/z/f8pLfD (Thanks Roman!)
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D106450
The motivation was to get min/max intrinsics to parity
with cmp+select idioms, but this unlocks a few more
folds because isFreeToInvert recognizes add/sub with
constants too.
In the min/max example, we have too many extra uses
for smaller folds to improve things, but this fold
is able to eliminate uses even though we can't reduce
the number of instructions.
This may overlap partially with the reassociate pass,
but it seems simple enough that we should try it here
in InstCombine to enable other folds.
This shows up as an opportunity and potential regression
if we improve a subtract fold with 'not' ops to be more
general.
Folding a GEP from outside to inside a loop will materialize an add where there wasn't an equivalent operation before. Check the containing loops before making this fold.
Reviewed By: lebedev.ri
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D107935
This makes the intrinsic logic match the cmp+select idiom folds
just below. It's not clearly a win either way unless we think
that a 'not' op costs more than min/max.
The cmp+select folds on these patterns are more extensive than
the intrinsics currently and may have some complicated interactions,
so I'm trying to make those line up and bring the optimizations
for intrinsics up to parity.
If both operands are negated, we can invert the min/max and do
the negation after:
smax (neg nsw X), (neg nsw Y) --> neg nsw (smin X, Y)
smin (neg nsw X), (neg nsw Y) --> neg nsw (smax X, Y)
This is visible as a remaining regression in D98152. I don't see
a way to generalize this for 'unsigned' or adapt Negator to
handle it. This only appears to be safe with 'nsw':
https://alive2.llvm.org/ce/z/GUy1zJ
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D108165
This adds a call to matchSAddSubSat from smin/smax instrinsics, allowing
the same patterns to match if the canonical form of a min/max is an
intrinsics, not a icmp/select.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D108077
This tests code starting from smin/smax, as opposed to the icmp/select
form. Also adds a ARM MVE phase ordering test for vectorizing to
sadd.sat from the original IR.
This is a re-try of 6de1dbbd09c1 which was reverted because
it missed a null check. Extra test for that failure added.
Original commit message:
This is an adaptation of D41603 and another step on the way
to canonicalizing to the intrinsic forms of min/max.
See D98152 for status.
This is a direct translation of the select folds added with
D53033 / D53036 and another step towards canonicalization
using the intrinsics (see D98152).
This is a quick fix for a motivating case that looks like this:
https://godbolt.org/z/GeMqzMc38
As noted, we might be able to restore the min/max patterns
with select folds, or we just wait for this to become easier
with canonicalization to min/max intrinsics.
The intrinsics have an extra chunk of known bits logic
compared to the normal cmp+select idiom. That allows
folding the icmp in each case to something better, but
that then opposes the canonical form of min/max that
we try to form for a select.
I'm carving out a narrow exception to preserve all
existing regression tests while avoiding the inf-loop.
It seems unlikely that this is the only bug like this
left, but this should fix:
https://llvm.org/PR51419
