I didn't notice any significant changes in the actual checks here;
all of these tests already used FileCheck, so a script can batch
update them in one shot.
This commit is just to show the value of automating this process:
We have uniform formatting as opposed to a mish-mash of check
structure that changes based on individual prefs and the current
fashion. This makes it simpler to update when we find a bug or
make an enhancement.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@264457 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
Summary:
This change teaches isImpliedCondition to prove things like
(A | 15) < L ==> (A | 14) < L
if the low 4 bits of A are known to be zero.
Depends on D14391
Reviewers: majnemer, reames, hfinkel
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D14392
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@252673 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
Summary:
Currently `isImpliedCondition` will optimize "I +_nuw C < L ==> I < L"
only if C is positive. This is an unnecessary restriction -- the
implication holds even if `C` is negative.
Reviewers: reames, majnemer
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D14369
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@252332 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
Summary:
This change adds a framework for adding more smarts to
`isImpliedCondition` around inequalities. Informally,
`isImpliedCondition` will now try to prove "A < B ==> C < D" by proving
"C <= A && B <= D", since then it follows "C <= A < B <= D".
While this change is in principle NFC, I could not think of a way to not
handle cases like "i +_nsw 1 < L ==> i < L +_nsw 1" (that ValueTracking
did not handle before) while keeping the change understandable. I've
added tests for these cases.
Reviewers: reames, majnemer, hfinkel
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D14368
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@252331 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
Follow on to http://reviews.llvm.org/D13074, implementing something pointed out by Sanjoy. His truth table from his comment on that bug summarizes things well:
LHS | RHS | LHS >=s RHS | LHS implies RHS
0 | 0 | 1 (0 >= 0) | 1
0 | 1 | 1 (0 >= -1) | 1
1 | 0 | 0 (-1 >= 0) | 0
1 | 1 | 1 (-1 >= -1) | 1
The key point is that an "i1 1" is the value "-1", not "1".
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D13756
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@251597 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
As mentioned in the bug, I'd missed the presence of a getScalarType in the caller of the new implies method. As a result, when we ended up with a implication over two vectors, we'd trip an assert and crash.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D13441
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@249442 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
This was split off of http://reviews.llvm.org/D13040 to make it easier to test the correctness of the implication logic. For the moment, this only handles a single easy case which shows up when eliminating and combining range checks. In the (near) future, I plan to extend this for other cases which show up in range checks, but I wanted to make those changes incrementally once the framework was in place.
At the moment, the implication logic will be used by three places. One in InstSimplify (this review) and two in SimplifyCFG (http://reviews.llvm.org/D13040 & http://reviews.llvm.org/D13070). Can anyone think of other locations this style of reasoning would make sense?
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D13074
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@248719 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
