321 Commits

Author SHA1 Message Date
Sanjay Patel 8921c5a885 [InstCombine] fold reassociative FP add into start value of fadd reduction
This pattern is visible in unrolled and vectorized loops.
Although the backend seems to be able to reassociate to
ideal form in the examples I looked at, we might as well
do that in IR for efficiency.
2021-07-18 06:26:20 -04:00
Sanjay Patel 26c9404ebd [InstCombine] fix nsz (fast-math) propagation from fneg-of-select
As discussed in the post-commit comments for:
3cdd05e519dd

It seems to be safe to propagate all flags from the final fneg
except for 'nsz' to the new select:
https://alive2.llvm.org/ce/z/J_APDc

nsz has unique FMF semantics: it is not poison, it is only
"insignificant" in the calculation according to the LangRef.
2021-06-08 17:04:30 -04:00
Sanjay Patel 30de816da1 [InstCombine] intersect nsz and ninf fast-math-flags (FMF) for fneg(fdiv) fold
https://alive2.llvm.org/ce/z/3KPvih

https://llvm.org/PR49654
2021-06-07 13:22:49 -04:00
Sanjay Patel 927aaff338 [InstCombine] refactor match clauses; NFC
We need to adjust the FMF propagation on at least
one of these transforms as discussed in:
https://llvm.org/PR49654
...so this should make it easier to intersect flags.
2021-06-07 13:22:49 -04:00
Sanjay Patel 0595724bb0 [InstCombine] fold fnegs around select
This is one of the folds requested in:
https://llvm.org/PR39480

https://alive2.llvm.org/ce/z/NczU3V

Note - this uses the normal FMF propagation logic
(flags transfer from the final value to new/intermediate ops).
It's not clear if this matches what Alive2 implements,
so we may want to adjust one or the other.
2021-05-17 14:53:49 -04:00
Dávid Bolvanský 8752b55ca6 [InstCombine] C - ctpop(a) - > ctpop(~a)) if C is bitwidth (PR50104)
Proof: https://alive2.llvm.org/ce/z/mncA9K
Solves https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=50104

Reviewed By: spatel

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D101257
2021-04-26 15:40:54 +02:00
Dávid Bolvanský e156538759 [InstCombine] ctpop(X) + ctpop(Y) => ctpop(X | Y) if X and Y have no common bits (PR48999)
For example:

```
int src(unsigned int a, unsigned int b)
{
    return __builtin_popcount(a << 16) + __builtin_popcount(b >> 16);
}

int tgt(unsigned int a, unsigned int b)
{
    return __builtin_popcount((a << 16)  | (b >> 16));
}
```

Reviewed By: nikic

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D101210
2021-04-24 17:52:10 +02:00
Dávid Bolvanský a2061d4adb [InstCombine] X - usub.sat(X, Y) => umin(X, Y)
Pattern regressed in LLVM 9 with the introduction of usub.sat.

Fixes https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=42178#c2

Reviewed By: nikic

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D101184
2021-04-23 21:13:07 +02:00
Roman Lebedev 7c91a8a0f3 [InstCombine] (X | Op01C) + Op1C --> X + (Op01C + Op1C) iff the or is actually an add
https://alive2.llvm.org/ce/z/Coc5yf
2021-04-11 18:08:08 +03:00
Roman Lebedev 3d5a1f14f3 [InstCombine] foldAddWithConstant(): don't deal with non-immediate constants
All of the code that handles general constant here (other than the more
restrictive APInt-dealing code) expects that it is an immediate,
because otherwise we won't actually fold the constants, and increase
instruction count. And it isn't obvious why we'd be okay with
increasing the number of constant expressions,
those still will have to be run..

But after 2829094a8e252d04f13aabdf6f416c42a06af695
this could also cause endless combine loops.
So actually properly restrict this code to immediates.
2021-04-07 19:50:19 +03:00
Roman Lebedev 4792a641c6 Reland [InstCombine] Fold ((X - Y) - Z) to X - (Y + Z) (PR49858)
This reverts commit a547b4e26b311e417cd51100e379693f51a3f448,
relanding commit 31d219d2997fed1b7dc97e0adf170d5aaf65883e,
which was reverted because there was a conflicting inverse transform,
which was causing an endless combine loop, which has now been adjusted.

Original commit message:

https://alive2.llvm.org/ce/z/67w-wQ

We prefer `add`s over `sub`, and this particular xform
allows further folds to happen:

Fixes https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=49858
2021-04-07 12:06:25 +03:00
Roman Lebedev 692350022e [InstCombine] Restrict "C-(X+C2) --> (C-C2)-X" fold to immediate constants
I.e., if any/all of the consants is an expression, don't do it.
Since those constants won't reduce into an immediate,
but would be left as an constant expression, they could cause
endless combine loops after 31d219d2997fed1b7dc97e0adf170d5aaf65883e
added an inverse transformation.
2021-04-07 12:06:24 +03:00
Petr Hosek 1f23f9cde8 Revert "[InstCombine] Fold ((X - Y) - Z) to X - (Y + Z) (PR49858)"
This reverts commit 31d219d2997fed1b7dc97e0adf170d5aaf65883e which
causes an infinite loop when compiling the XRay runtime.
2021-04-06 22:30:28 -07:00
Roman Lebedev 06d35436b7 [InstCombine] Fold ((X - Y) - Z) to X - (Y + Z) (PR49858)
https://alive2.llvm.org/ce/z/67w-wQ

We prefer `add`s over `sub`, and this particular xform
allows further folds to happen:

Fixes https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=49858
2021-04-06 15:58:14 +03:00
Dávid Bolvanský 112f5ef17b [InstCombine] Transform (A + B) - (A & B) to A | B (PR48604)
define i32 @src(i32 %x, i32 %y) {
%0:
  %a = add i32 %x, %y
  %o = and i32 %x, %y
  %r = sub i32 %a, %o
  ret i32 %r
}
=>
define i32 @tgt(i32 %x, i32 %y) {
%0:
  %b = or i32 %x, %y
  ret i32 %b
}
Transformation seems to be correct!

https://alive2.llvm.org/ce/z/2fhW6r
2020-12-31 15:04:32 +01:00
Dávid Bolvanský cd22ed8c6e [InstCombine] Transform (A + B) - (A | B) to A & B (PR48604)
define i32 @src(i32 %x, i32 %y) {
%0:
  %a = add i32 %x, %y
  %o = or i32 %x, %y
  %r = sub i32 %a, %o
  ret i32 %r
}
=>
define i32 @tgt(i32 %x, i32 %y) {
%0:
  %b = and i32 %x, %y
  ret i32 %b
}
Transformation seems to be correct!

https://alive2.llvm.org/ce/z/aQRh2j
2020-12-31 14:03:20 +01:00
Roman Lebedev 6743a26b49 [IR][InstCombine] Add m_ImmConstant(), that matches on non-ConstantExpr constants, and use it
A pattern to ignore ConstantExpr's is quite common, since they frequently
lead into infinite combine loops, so let's make writing it easier.
2020-12-24 21:20:47 +03:00
Reid Kleckner b945e1014a Revert "ADT: Migrate users of AlignedCharArrayUnion to std::aligned_union_t, NFC"
We determined that the MSVC implementation of std::aligned* isn't suited
to our needs. It doesn't support 16 byte alignment or higher, and it
doesn't really guarantee 8 byte alignment. See
https://github.com/microsoft/STL/issues/1533

Also reverts "ADT: Change AlignedCharArrayUnion to an alias of std::aligned_union_t, NFC"

Also reverts "ADT: Remove AlignedCharArrayUnion, NFC" to bring back
AlignedCharArrayUnion.

This reverts commit 4d8bf870a82765eb0d4fe53c82f796b957c05954.

This reverts commit d10f9863a5ac1cb681af07719650c44b48f289ce.

This reverts commit 4b5dc150b9862271720b3d56a3e723a55dd81838.
2020-12-14 17:04:06 -08:00
Duncan P. N. Exon Smith ea15c01596 ADT: Migrate users of AlignedCharArrayUnion to std::aligned_union_t, NFC
Prepare to delete `AlignedCharArrayUnion` by migrating its users over to
`std::aligned_union_t`.

I will delete `AlignedCharArrayUnion` and its tests in a follow-up
commit so that it's easier to revert in isolation in case some
downstream wants to keep using it.

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D92516
2020-12-04 12:34:49 -08:00
Duncan P. N. Exon Smith f1e94c82c9 ADT: Stop peeking inside AlignedCharArrayUnion, NFC
Update all the users of `AlignedCharArrayUnion` to stop peeking inside
(to look at `buffer`) so that a follow-up patch can replace it with an
alias to `std::aligned_union_t`.

This was reviewed as part of https://reviews.llvm.org/D92512, but I'm
splitting this bit out to commit first to reduce churn in case the
change to `AlignedCharArrayUnion` needs to be reverted for some
unexpected reason.
2020-12-04 11:07:42 -08:00
Sanjay Patel e2c64980ec [InstCombine] try difference-of-shifts factorization before negator
We need to preserve wrapping flags to allow better folds.
The cases with geps may be non-intuitive, but that appears to agree with Alive2:
https://alive2.llvm.org/ce/z/JQcqw7
We create 'nsw' ops independent from the original wrapping on the sub.
2020-11-24 13:56:30 -05:00
Sanjay Patel 0a14f770e0 [InstCombine] propagate 'nsw' on pointer difference of 'inbounds' geps
This is a retry of 324a53205. I cautiously reverted that at 6aa3fc4
because the rules about gep math were not clear. Since then, we
have added this line to LangRef for gep inbounds:
"The successive addition of offsets (without adding the base address)
does not wrap the pointer index type in a signed sense (nsw)."

See D90708 and post-commit comments on the revert patch for more details.
2020-11-23 16:50:09 -05:00
Nikita Popov aad72ef238 [Local] Clean up EmitGEPOffset
Handle the emission of the add in a single place, instead of three
different ones.

Don't emit an unnecessary add with zero to start with. It will get
dropped by InstCombine, but we may as well not create it in the
first place. This also means that InstCombine does not need to
specially handle this extra add.

This is conceptually NFC, but can affect worklist order etc.
2020-11-13 18:30:56 +01:00
Sanjay Patel b6044b4d1a [InstCombine] fold sub of low-bit masked value from offset of same value
There might be some demanded/known bits way to generalize this,
but I'm not seeing it right now.

This came up as a regression when I was looking at a different
demanded bits improvement.

https://rise4fun.com/Alive/5fl

  Name: general
  Pre: ((-1 << countTrailingZeros(C1)) & C2) == 0
  %a1 = add i8 %x, C1
  %a2 = and i8 %x, C2
  %r = sub i8 %a1, %a2
  =>
  %r = and i8 %a1, ~C2

  Name: test 1
  %a1 = add i8 %x, 192
  %a2 = and i8 %x, 10
  %r = sub i8 %a1, %a2
  =>
  %r = and i8 %a1, -11

  Name: test 2
  %a1 = add i8 %x, -108
  %a2 = and i8 %x, 3
  %r = sub i8 %a1, %a2
  =>
  %r = and i8 %a1, -4
2020-11-12 20:10:28 -05:00
Roman Lebedev 67e1befafc [InstCombine] Perform C-(X+C2) --> (C-C2)-X transform before using Negator
In particular, it makes it fire for C=0, because negator doesn't want
to perform that fold since in general it's not beneficial.
2020-11-03 16:06:52 +03:00
Sanjay Patel f2e6883077 [InstCombine] allow vector splats for add+xor --> shifts 2020-10-11 09:04:24 -04:00
Sanjay Patel 372d448d9b [InstCombine] add one-use check to add+xor transform
As shown in the affected test, we could increase instruction
count without this limitation. There's another test with extra
use that shows we still convert directly to a real "sext" if
possible.
2020-10-11 09:04:24 -04:00
Sanjay Patel 45b43d4e29 [InstCombine] allow vector splats for add+and with high-mask
There might be a better way to specify the pre-conditions,
but this is hopefully clearer than the way it was written:
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/Jhk3

  Pre: C2 < 0 && isShiftedMask(C2) && (C1 == C1 & C2)
  %a = and %x, C2
  %r = add %a, C1
  =>
  %a2 = add %x, C1
  %r = and %a2, C2
2020-10-09 10:39:11 -04:00
Sanjay Patel 43799dbe92 [InstCombine] allow vector splats for add+xor with low-mask
This can be allowed with undef elements too, but that can be another step:
https://alive2.llvm.org/ce/z/hnC4Z-
2020-10-08 15:53:38 -04:00
Sanjay Patel 75c88e4411 [InstCombine] remove unnecessary one-use check from add-xor transform
Pre-conditions seem to be optimal, but we don't need a use check
because we are only replacing an add with a sub.

https://rise4fun.com/Alive/hzN

  Pre: (~C1 | C2 == -1) && isPowerOf2(C2+1)
  %m = and i8 %x, C1
  %f = xor i8 %m, C2
  %r = add i8 %f, C3
  =>
  %r = sub i8 C2 + C3, %m
2020-10-08 15:08:51 -04:00
Sanjay Patel 43cd7a3a13 [InstCombine] allow vector splats for add+xor with signmask 2020-10-08 10:46:34 -04:00
Amara Emerson 59c2440372 [llvm][mlir] Promote the experimental reduction intrinsics to be first class intrinsics.
This change renames the intrinsics to not have "experimental" in the name.

The autoupgrader will handle legacy intrinsics.

Relevant ML thread: http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2020-April/140729.html

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D88787
2020-10-07 10:36:44 -07:00
Martin Storsjö 5a2a061ce1 [InstCombine] Add parentheses in assert to silence GCC warning. NFC. 2020-09-23 09:03:01 +03:00
Sanjay Patel 79a8f1c79c [InstCombine] factorize left shifts of add/sub
We do similar factorization folds in SimplifyUsingDistributiveLaws,
but that drops no-wrap properties. Propagating those optimally may
help solve:
https://llvm.org/PR47430

The propagation is all-or-nothing for these patterns: when all
3 incoming ops have nsw or nuw, the 2 new ops should have the
same no-wrap property:
https://alive2.llvm.org/ce/z/Dv8wsU

This also solves:
https://llvm.org/PR47584
2020-09-20 12:55:24 -04:00
Sanjay Patel 7d22ac8f46 Revert "[InstCombine] propagate 'nsw' on pointer difference of 'inbounds' geps (PR47430)"
This reverts commit 324a53205a3af979e3de109fdd52f91781816cba.

On closer examination of at least one of the test diffs,
this does not appear to be correct in all cases. Even the
existing 'nsw' creation may be wrong based on this example:
https://alive2.llvm.org/ce/z/uL4Hw9
https://alive2.llvm.org/ce/z/fJMKQS
2020-09-11 10:54:48 -04:00
Sanjay Patel f7e01a7376 [InstCombine] propagate 'nsw' on pointer difference of 'inbounds' geps (PR47430)
There's no signed wrap if both geps have 'inbounds':
https://alive2.llvm.org/ce/z/nZkQTg
https://alive2.llvm.org/ce/z/7qFauh
2020-09-11 10:39:09 -04:00
Sanjay Patel c81c9fc73f [InstCombine] improve fold of pointer differences
This was supposed to be an NFC cleanup, but there's
a real logic difference (did not drop 'nsw') visible
in some tests in addition to an efficiency improvement.

This is because in the case where we have 2 GEPs,
the code was *always* swapping the operands and
negating the result. But if we have 2 GEPs, we
should *never* need swapping/negation AFAICT.

This is part of improving flags propagation noticed
with PR47430.
2020-09-07 15:54:32 -04:00
Sanjay Patel 9e71816984 [InstCombine] give a name to an intermediate value for easier tracking; NFC
As noted in PR47430, we probably want to conditionally include 'nsw'
here anyway, so we are going to need to fill out the optional args.
2020-09-07 08:19:42 -04:00
Nikita Popov ae2c041ee4 [InstCombine] Fix typo in comment (NFC)
As pointed out in post-commit review of D63060.
2020-08-29 10:17:17 +02:00
Nikita Popov 2d55005b0d [InstCombine] usub.sat(a, b) + b => umax(a, b) (PR42178)
Fixes https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=42178 by folding
usub.sat(a, b) + b to umax(a, b). The backend will expand umax
back to usubsat if that is profitable.

We may also want to handle uadd.sat(a, b) - b in the future.

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D63060
2020-08-28 21:52:29 +02:00
Sebastian Neubauer 8980610845 [InstCombine] Move target-specific inst combining
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
2020-07-22 15:59:49 +02:00
Sanjay Patel d6c0ccc19e [InstCombine] reassociate diff of sums into sum of diffs
This is the integer sibling to D81491.

(a[0] + a[1] + a[2] + a[3]) - (b[0] + b[1] + b[2] +b[3]) -->
(a[0] - b[0]) + (a[1] - b[1]) + (a[2] - b[2]) + (a[3] - b[3])

Removing the "experimental" from these intrinsics is likely
not too far away.
2020-06-22 20:47:09 -04:00
Sanjay Patel 648f89af4d [InstCombine] reassociate FP diff of sums into sum of diffs
(a[0] + a[1] + a[2] + a[3]) - (b[0] + b[1] + b[2] +b[3]) -->
(a[0] - b[0]) + (a[1] - b[1]) + (a[2] - b[2]) + (a[3] - b[3])

This should be the last step in solving PR43953:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=43953

We started emitting reduction intrinsics with:
D80867/ rGe50059f6b6b3
So it's a relatively easy pattern match now to re-order those ops.
Also, I have not seen any complaints for the switch to intrinsics
yet, so I'll propose to remove the "experimental" tag from the
intrinsics soon.

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D81491
2020-06-14 09:09:03 -04:00
EgorBo 8ee509f914 [InstCombine] "X - (X / C) * C == 0" to "X & C-1 == 0"
Summary:
"X % C == 0" is optimized to "X & C-1 == 0" (where C is a power-of-two)
However, "X % Y" can also be represented as "X - (X / Y) * Y" so if I rewrite the initial expression:
"X - (X / C) * C == 0" it's not currently optimized to "X & C-1 == 0", see godbolt: https://godbolt.org/z/KzuXUj

This is my first contribution to LLVM so I hope I didn't mess things up

Reviewers: lebedev.ri, spatel

Reviewed By: lebedev.ri

Subscribers: hiraditya, llvm-commits

Tags: #llvm

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D79369
2020-06-12 10:20:06 +03:00
Sanjay Patel f1cc72d892 [InstCombine] reassociate sub+add to increase adds and throughput
The -reassociate pass tends to transform this kind of pattern into
something that is worse for vectorization and codegen. See PR43953:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=43953

Follows-up the FP version of the same transform:
rGa0ce2338a083
2020-05-26 14:49:17 -04:00
Sanjay Patel 443ffc461c [InstCombine] reassociate fsub+fadd with FMF to increase adds and throughput
The -reassociate pass tends to transform this kind of pattern into
something that is worse for vectorization and codegen. See PR43953:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=43953
2020-05-26 13:17:15 -04:00
Sanjay Patel 56d9dc66a3 [InstCombine] (A + B) + B --> A + (B << 1)
This eliminates a use of 'B', so it can enable follow-on transforms
as well as improve analysis/codegen.

The PhaseOrdering test was added for D61726, and that shows
the limits of instcombine vs. real reassociation. We would
need to run some form of CSE to collapse that further.

The intermediate variable naming here is intentional because
there's a test at llvm/test/Bitcode/value-with-long-name.ll
that would break with the usual nameless value. I'm not sure
how to improve that test to be more robust.

The naming may also be helpful to debug regressions if this
change exposes weaknesses in the reassociation pass for example.
2020-05-22 11:46:59 -04:00
Roman Lebedev b6333cc946 [InstCombine] Negator - sink sinkable negations
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
2020-04-21 22:00:23 +03:00
Sanjay Patel c9c33476c5 [InstCombine] prevent infinite loop with sub/abs of constant expression
PR45539:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=45539
2020-04-15 09:19:16 -04:00
Serge Pavlov 4088931555 [FPEnv] Use single enum to represent rounding mode
Now compiler defines 5 sets of constants to represent rounding mode.
These are:

1. `llvm::APFloatBase::roundingMode`. It specifies all 5 rounding modes
defined by IEEE-754 and is used in `APFloat` implementation.

2. `clang::LangOptions::FPRoundingModeKind`. It specifies 4 of 5 IEEE-754
rounding modes and a special value for dynamic rounding mode. It is used
in clang frontend.

3. `llvm::fp::RoundingMode`. Defines the same values as
`clang::LangOptions::FPRoundingModeKind` but in different order. It is
used to specify rounding mode in in IR and functions that operate IR.

4. Rounding mode representation used by `FLT_ROUNDS` (C11, 5.2.4.2.2p7).
Besides constants for rounding mode it also uses a special value to
indicate error. It is convenient to use in intrinsic functions, as it
represents platform-independent representation for rounding mode. In this
role it is used in some pending patches.

5. Values like `FE_DOWNWARD` and other, which specify rounding mode in
library calls `fesetround` and `fegetround`. Often they represent bits
of some control register, so they are target-dependent. The same names
(not values) and a special name `FE_DYNAMIC` are used in
`#pragma STDC FENV_ROUND`.

The first 4 sets of constants are target independent and could have the
same numerical representation. It would simplify conversion between the
representations. Also now `clang::LangOptions::FPRoundingModeKind` and
`llvm::fp::RoundingMode` do not contain the value for IEEE-754 rounding
direction `roundTiesToAway`, although it is supported natively on
some targets.

This change defines all the rounding mode type via one `llvm::RoundingMode`,
which also contains rounding mode for IEEE rounding direction `roundTiesToAway`.

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D77379
2020-04-09 13:26:47 +07:00