Change all the cstval_pred_ty based PatternMatch helpers (things like
m_AllOnes and m_Zero) to only allow poison elements inside vector
splats, not undef elements.
Historically, we used to represent non-demanded elements in vectors
using undef. Nowadays, we use poison instead. As such, I believe that
support for undef in vector splats is no longer useful.
At the same time, while poison splat elements are pretty much always
safe to ignore, this is not generally the case for undef elements. We
have existing miscompiles in our tests due to this (see the
masked-merge-*.ll tests changed here) and it's easy to miss such cases
in the future, now that we write tests using poison instead of undef
elements.
I think overall, keeping support for undef elements no longer makes
sense, and we should drop it. Once this is done consistently, I think we
may also consider allowing poison in m_APInt by default, as doing that
change is much less risky than doing the same with undef.
This change involves a substantial amount of test changes. For most
tests, I've just replaced undef with poison, as I don't think there is
value in retaining both. For some tests (where the distinction between
undef and poison is important), I've duplicated tests.
As it's causing some bot failures (and per request from kbarton).
This reverts commit r358543/ab70da07286e618016e78247e4a24fcb84077fda.
llvm-svn: 358546
This is the last step in getting constant pattern matchers to allow
undef elements in constant vectors.
I'm adding a dedicated m_ZeroInt() function and building m_Zero() from
that. In most cases, calling code can be updated to use m_ZeroInt()
directly when there's no need to match pointers, but I'm leaving that
efficiency optimization as a follow-up step because it's not always
clear when that's ok.
There are just enough icmp folds in InstSimplify that can be used for
integer or pointer types, that we probably still want a generic m_Zero()
for those cases. Otherwise, we could eliminate it (and possibly add a
m_NullPtr() as an alias for isa<ConstantPointerNull>()).
We're conservatively returning a full zero vector (zeroinitializer) in
InstSimplify/InstCombine on some of these folds (see diffs in InstSimplify),
but I'm not sure if that's actually necessary in all cases. We may be
able to propagate an undef lane instead. One test where this happens is
marked with 'TODO'.
llvm-svn: 330550
0 - X --> X, if X is 0 or the minimum signed value
0 - X --> 0, if X is 0 or the minimum signed value and the sub is NSW
I noticed this pattern might be created in the backend after the change from D25485,
so we'll want to add a similar fold for the DAG.
The use of computeKnownBits in InstSimplify may be something to investigate if the
compile time of InstSimplify is noticeable. We could replace computeKnownBits with
specific pattern matchers or limit the recursion.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D25785
llvm-svn: 284649
