Original commit message for r153521 (aka r153423):
Use the new range metadata in computeMaskedBits and add a new optimization to
instruction simplify that lets us remove an and when loding a boolean value.
llvm-svn: 153587
undefined behavior, which Rafael was kind enough to fix.
Original commit message for r153423:
Use the new range metadata in computeMaskedBits and add a new optimization to
instruction simplify that lets us remove an and when loding a boolean value.
llvm-svn: 153521
Original commit message:
Use the new range metadata in computeMaskedBits and add a new optimization to
instruction simplify that lets us remove an and when loading a boolean value.
llvm-svn: 153452
constant-offsets of a common base using the generic GEP-walking logic
I added for computing pointer differences in the same situation.
llvm-svn: 153419
inbounds GEPs. This isn't really necessary for simplifying pointer
differences, but I'm planning to re-use the same code to simplify
pointer comparisons where it is necessary. Since real code almost
exclusively uses inbounds GEPs, it doesn't seem worth it to support the
extra complexity of turning it on and off. If anyone would like that
back, feel free to shout. Note that instcombine will still catch any of
these patterns.
llvm-svn: 153418
spotted by inspection, and I've crafted no test case that triggers it on
my machine, but some of the windows builders are hitting what looks like
memory corruption, so *something* is amiss here.
This patch takes a more generalized approach to eliminating
double-visits. Imagine code such as:
%x = ...
%y = add %x, 1
%z = add %x, %y
You can imagine that if we simplify %x, we would add %y and %z to the
list. If the use-chain order happens to cause us to add them in reverse
order, we could pull %y off first, and simplify it, adding %z to the
list. We now have %z on the list twice, and will reference it after it
is deleted.
Currently, all my test cases happen to not trigger this, likely due to
the use-chain ordering, but there seems no guarantee that such
a situation could not occur, so we should handle it correctly.
Again, if anyone knows how to craft a testcase that actually triggers
this, please let me know.
llvm-svn: 153397
worklist. This can happen in theory when an instruction uses itself,
such as a PHI node. This was spotted by inspection, and unfortunately
I've not been able to come up with a test case that would trigger it. If
anyone has ideas, let me know...
llvm-svn: 153396
bit simpler by handling a common case explicitly.
Also, refactor the implementation to use a worklist based walk of the
recursive users, rather than trying to use value handles to detect and
recover from RAUWs during the recursive descent. This fixes a very
subtle bug in the previous implementation where degenerate control flow
structures could cause mutually recursive instructions (PHI nodes) to
collapse in just such a way that From became equal to To after some
amount of recursion. At that point, we hit the inf-loop that the assert
at the top attempted to guard against. This problem is defined away when
not using value handles in this manner. There are lots of comments
claiming that the WeakVH will protect against just this sort of error,
but they're not accurate about the actual implementation of WeakVHs,
which do still track RAUWs.
I don't have any test case for the bug this fixes because it requires
running the recursive simplification on unreachable phi nodes. I've no
way to either run this or easily write an input that triggers it. It was
found when using instruction simplification inside the inliner when
running over the nightly test-suite.
llvm-svn: 153393
not attched to a basic block or function. There are conservatively
correct answers in these cases, and this makes the analysis more useful
in contexts where we have a partially formed bit of IR.
I don't have any way to test this directly... suggestions welcome here,
but I'm not seeing anything sadly. I only found this using a subsequent
patch to the inliner which runs instsimplify on partially inlined
instructions, and even then only on a quite large program. I never got
a reasonable testcase out of it, and anything I do get is likely to be
quite fragile due to requiring an interaction of two different passes,
and the only result being a segfault if it goes wrong.
llvm-svn: 153176
theoretical fix since it only matters for types with >= 2^63 bits (!) and also
only matters if pointers have more than 64 bits, which is not supported anyway.
llvm-svn: 152831
take a TargetLibraryInfo parameter. Internally, rather than passing TD, TLI
and DT parameters around all over the place, introduce a struct for holding
them.
llvm-svn: 152623
offset accumulation to use a boring APInt instead of ConstantExprs.
I didn't go all the way to an 'int64_t' because I wanted APInt to handle
any magic required to properly wrap the arithmetic when the pointer
width is <64 bits. If there is a significant penalty from using APInt
here, first off WTF, and secondly let me know and I'll do the math by
hand.
I've left one layer still operating w/ ConstantExpr because it makes the
interface quite a bit simpler, and that one isn't iterative so has much
lower cost.
I suppose this may potentially speed up some strang compilation
situations, but I don't really expect much. It should have no functional
impact either way.
llvm-svn: 152590
Typically instcombine has handled this, but pointer differences show up
in several contexts where we would like to get constant folding, and
cannot afford to run instcombine. Specifically, I'm working on improving
the constant folding of arguments used in inline cost analysis with
instsimplify.
Doing this in instsimplify implies some algorithm changes. We have to
handle multiple layers of all-constant GEPs because instsimplify cannot
fold them into a single GEP the way instcombine can. Also, we're only
interested in all-constant GEPs. The result is that this doesn't really
replace the instcombine logic, it's just complimentary and focused on
constant folding.
Reviewed on IRC by Benjamin Kramer.
llvm-svn: 152555
The 'CmpInst::isFalseWhenEqual' function returns 'false' for values other than
simply equality. For instance, it returns 'false' for <= or >=. This isn't the
correct behavior for this transformation, which is checking for strict equality
and non-equality. It was causing the gcc.c-torture/execute/frame-address.c test
to fail because it would completely (and incorrectly) optimize a whole function
into a 'ret i32 0'.
llvm-svn: 152497
a common collection of methods on Value, and share their implementation.
We had two variations in two different places already, and I need the
third variation for inline cost estimation.
Reviewed by Duncan Sands on IRC, but further comments here welcome.
llvm-svn: 152490
with the given predicate, it matches any condition and returns the
predicate - d'oh! Original commit message:
The expression icmp eq (select (icmp eq x, 0), 1, x), 0 folds to false.
Spotted by my super-optimizer in 186.crafty and 450.soplex. We really
need a proper infrastructure for handling generalizations of this kind
of thing (which occur a lot), however this case is so simple that I decided
to go ahead and implement it directly.
llvm-svn: 143318
Spotted by my super-optimizer in 186.crafty and 450.soplex. We really
need a proper infrastructure for handling generalizations of this kind
of thing (which occur a lot), however this case is so simple that I decided
to go ahead and implement it directly.
llvm-svn: 143214
using BinaryOperator (which only works for instructions) when it should have
been a cast to OverflowingBinaryOperator (which also works for constants).
While there, correct a few other dubious looking uses of BinaryOperator.
Thanks to Chad Rosier for the testcase. Original commit message:
My super-optimizer noticed that we weren't folding this expression to
true: (x *nsw x) sgt 0, where x = (y | 1). This occurs in 464.h264ref.
llvm-svn: 143125
