Currently foldSelectICmpAndOr asserts if the "or" involves a vector
containing several of the same power of two. We can easily avoid this by
only performing the fold on integer types, like foldSelectICmpAnd does.
Fixes <rdar://problem/15012516>
llvm-svn: 191552
This fixes the optimization introduced in r179748 and reverted in r179750.
While the optimization was sound, it did not properly respect differences in
bit-width.
llvm-svn: 180777
Sooooo many of these had incorrect or strange main module includes.
I have manually inspected all of these, and fixed the main module
include to be the nearest plausible thing I could find. If you own or
care about any of these source files, I encourage you to take some time
and check that these edits were sensible. I can't have broken anything
(I strictly added headers, and reordered them, never removed), but they
may not be the headers you'd really like to identify as containing the
API being implemented.
Many forward declarations and missing includes were added to a header
files to allow them to parse cleanly when included first. The main
module rule does in fact have its merits. =]
llvm-svn: 169131
This can happen as long as the instruction is not reachable. Instcombine does generate these unreachable malformed selects when doing RAUW
llvm-svn: 160874
The test case feeds the following into InstCombine's visitSelect:
%tobool8 = icmp ne i32 0, 0
%phitmp = select i1 %tobool8, i32 3, i32 0
Then instcombine replaces the right side of the switch with 0, doesn't notice
that nothing changes and tries again indefinitely.
This fixes PR12897.
llvm-svn: 157587
removes one use of X which helps it pass the many hasOneUse() checks.
In my analysis, this turns up very often where X = A >>exact B and that can't be
simplified unless X has one use (except by increasing the lifetime of A which is
generally a performance loss).
llvm-svn: 128373
X = sext x; x >s c ? X : C+1 --> X = sext x; X <s C+1 ? C+1 : X
X = sext x; x <s c ? X : C-1 --> X = sext x; X >s C-1 ? C-1 : X
X = zext x; x >u c ? X : C+1 --> X = zext x; X <u C+1 ? C+1 : X
X = zext x; x <u c ? X : C-1 --> X = zext x; X >u C-1 ? C-1 : X
X = sext x; x >u c ? X : C+1 --> X = sext x; X <u C+1 ? C+1 : X
X = sext x; x <u c ? X : C-1 --> X = sext x; X >u C-1 ? C-1 : X
Instead of calculating this with mixed types promote all to the
larger type. This enables scalar evolution to analyze this
expression. PR8866
llvm-svn: 123034
(x & 2^n) ? 2^m+C : C
we can offset both arms by C to get the "(x & 2^n) ? 2^m : 0" form, optimize the
select to a shift and apply the offset afterwards.
llvm-svn: 121609
the corresponding or-icmp-and pattern. This has the added benefit of doing
the matching earlier, and thus being less susceptible to being confused by
earlier transforms.
llvm-svn: 108429
