Followup to D55745, this time handling comparisons with ugt and ult
predicates (which are the canonical forms for non-equality predicates).
For ctlz we can convert into a simple icmp, for cttz we can convert
into a mask check.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D56355
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@351645 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
to reflect the new license.
We understand that people may be surprised that we're moving the header
entirely to discuss the new license. We checked this carefully with the
Foundation's lawyer and we believe this is the correct approach.
Essentially, all code in the project is now made available by the LLVM
project under our new license, so you will see that the license headers
include that license only. Some of our contributors have contributed
code under our old license, and accordingly, we have retained a copy of
our old license notice in the top-level files in each project and
repository.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@351636 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
This fixes https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=39908.
The evaluateGEPOffsetExpression() function simplifies GEP offsets for
use in comparisons against zero, basically by converting X*Scale+Offset==0
to X+Offset/Scale==0 if Scale divides Offset. However, before this is done,
Offset is masked down to the pointer size. This results in incorrect
results for negative Offsets, because we basically end up dividing the
32-bit offset *zero* extended to 64-bit bits (rather than sign extended).
Fix this by explicitly sign extending the truncated value.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D55449
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@348987 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
I was finally able to quantify what i thought was missing in the fix,
it was vector constants. If we have a scalar (and %x, -1),
it will be instsimplified before we reach this code,
but if it is a vector, we may still have a -1 element.
Thus, we want to avoid the fold if *at least one* element is -1.
Or in other words, ignoring the undef elements, no sign bits
should be set. Thus, m_NonNegative().
A follow-up for rL348181
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=39861
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@348462 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
The tests here are based on the motivating cases from D54827.
More background:
1. We don't get these cases in general with SimplifyCFG because the root
of the pattern match is an icmp, not a branch. I'm not sure how often
we encounter this pattern vs. the seemingly more likely case with
branches, but I don't see evidence to leave the minimal pattern
unoptimized.
2. This has a chance of increasing compile-time because we're using a
ValueTracking call to handle the match. The motivating cases could be
handled with a simpler pair of calls to isImpliedTrueByMatchingCmp/
isImpliedFalseByMatchingCmp, but I saw that we have a more
comprehensive wrapper around those, so we might as well use it here
unless there's evidence that it's significantly slower.
3. Ideally, we'd handle the fold to constants in InstSimplify, but as
with the existing code here, we could extend this to handle cases
where the result is not a constant, but a new combined predicate.
That would mean splitting the logic across the 2 passes and possibly
duplicating the pattern-matching cost.
4. As mentioned in D54827, this seems like the kind of thing that should
be handled in Correlated Value Propagation, but that pass is currently
limited to dealing with instructions with constant operands, so extending
this bit of InstCombine is the smallest/easiest way to get these patterns
optimized.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@348367 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
Move it out from under the constant check, reorder
predicates, add comments. This makes it easier to
extend to handle the non-constant case.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@348284 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
There's a potential small enhancement to this code that could
solve the cases currently under proposal in D54827 via SimplifyCFG.
Whether instcombine should be doing this kind of semi-non-local
analysis in the first place is an open question, but separating
the logic out can only help if/when we decide to move it to a
different pass.
AFAICT, any proposal to do this in SimplifyCFG could also be seen
as an overreach + it would be incomplete to start the fold from a
branch rather than an icmp.
There's another question here about the code for processUGT_ADDCST_ADD().
That part may be completely dead after rL234638 ?
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@348273 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
By morphing the instruction rather than deleting and creating a new one,
we retain fast-math-flags and potentially other metadata (profile info?).
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@346331 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
That should be the end of the missing cases for this fold.
See earlier patches in this series:
rL346321
rL346324
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@346327 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
Similar to rL346321, we had folds for the ordered
versions of these compares already, so add the
unordered siblings for completeness.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@346324 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
The sibling fold for 'oge' --> 'ord' was already here,
but this half was missing.
The result of fabs() must be positive or nan, so asking
if the result is negative or nan is the same as asking
if the result is nan.
This is another step towards fixing:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=39475
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@346321 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
As shown, this is used to eliminate redundant code in InstCombine,
and there are more cases where we should be using this pattern, but
we're currently unintentionally dropping flags.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@346282 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
Also, remove/replace/minimize/enhance the tests for this fold.
The code drops FMF, so it needs more tests and at least 1 fix.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@345734 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
The 'OLT' case was updated at rL266175, so I assume it was just an
oversight that 'UGE' was not included because that patch handled
both predicates in InstSimplify.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@345727 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
Summary:
This is a continuation of the fix for PR34627 "InstCombine assertion at vector gep/icmp folding". (I just realized bugpoint had fuzzed the original test for me, so I had fixed another trigger of the same assert in adjacent code in InstCombine.)
This patch avoids optimizing an icmp (to look only at the base pointers) when the resulting icmp would have a different type.
The patch adds a testcase and also cleans up and shrinks the pre-existing test for the adjacent assert trigger.
Reviewers: lebedev.ri, majnemer, spatel
Reviewed By: lebedev.ri
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D52494
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@343486 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
When C is not zero and infinites are not allowed (C / X) > 0 is a sign
test. Depending on the sign of C, the predicate must be swapped.
E.g.:
foo(double X) {
if ((-2.0 / X) <= 0) ...
}
=>
foo(double X) {
if (X >= 0) ...
}
Patch by: @marels (Martin Elshuber)
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D51942
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@343228 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
Summary:
Two folds are happening here:
1. https://rise4fun.com/Alive/oaFX
2. And then `foldICmpWithHighBitMask()` (D52001): https://rise4fun.com/Alive/wsP4
This change doesn't just add the handling for eq/ne predicates,
it actually builds upon the previous `foldICmpWithLowBitMaskedVal()` work,
so **all** the 16 fold variants* are immediately supported.
I'm indeed only testing these two predicates.
I do not feel like re-proving all 16 folds*, because they were already proven
for the general case of constant with all-ones in low bits. So as long as
the mask produces all-ones in low bits, i'm pretty sure the fold is valid.
But required, i can re-prove, let me know.
* eq/ne are commutative - 4 folds; ult/ule/ugt/uge - are not commutative (the commuted variant is InstSimplified), 4 folds; slt/sle/sgt/sge are not commutative - 4 folds. 12 folds in total.
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=38123https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=38708
Reviewers: spatel, craig.topper, RKSimon
Reviewed By: spatel
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D52146
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@342546 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
Summary:
It is sometimes important to check that some newly-computed value
is non-negative and only n bits wide (where n is a variable.)
There are many ways to check that:
https://godbolt.org/z/o4RB8D
The last variant seems best?
(I'm sure there are some other variations i haven't thought of..)
More complicated, canonical pattern:
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/uhA
We do need to have two `switch()`'es like this,
to not mismatch the swappable predicates.
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=38708
Reviewers: spatel, craig.topper, RKSimon
Reviewed By: spatel
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D52001
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@342173 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
Name: op_ugt_sum
%a = add i8 %x, %y
%r = icmp ugt i8 %x, %a
=>
%notx = xor i8 %x, -1
%r = icmp ugt i8 %y, %notx
Name: sum_ult_op
%a = add i8 %x, %y
%r = icmp ult i8 %a, %x
=>
%notx = xor i8 %x, -1
%r = icmp ugt i8 %y, %notx
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/ZRxI
AFAICT, this doesn't interfere with any add-saturation patterns
because those have >1 use for the 'add'. But this should be
better for IR analysis and codegen in the basic cases.
This is another fold inspired by PR14613:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14613
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@342004 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
These are the folds in Alive;
Name: xor_ult
Pre: isPowerOf2(-C1)
%xor = xor i8 %x, C1
%r = icmp ult i8 %xor, C1
=>
%r = icmp ugt i8 %x, ~C1
Name: xor_ugt
Pre: isPowerOf2(C1+1)
%xor = xor i8 %x, C1
%r = icmp ugt i8 %xor, C1
=>
%r = icmp ugt i8 %x, C1
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/Vty
The ugt case in its simplest form was already handled by DemandedBits,
but that's not ideal as shown in the multi-use test.
I'm not sure if these are all of the symmetrical folds, but I adjusted
the existing code for one of the folds to try to show the similarities.
There's no obvious connection, but this is another preliminary step
for PR14613...
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14613
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@341997 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
There were two combines not covered by the check before now, neither of which
actually differed from normal in the benefit analysis.
The most recent seems to be because it was just added at the top of the
function (naturally). The older is from way back in 2008 (r46687) when we just
didn't put those checks in so routinely, and has been diligently maintained
since.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@341831 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
Summary:
[[ https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=38149 | PR38149 ]]
As discussed in https://reviews.llvm.org/D49179#1158957 and later,
the IR for 'check for [no] signed truncation' pattern can be improved:
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/gBf
^ that pattern will be produced by Implicit Integer Truncation sanitizer,
https://reviews.llvm.org/D48958https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=21530
in signed case, therefore it is probably a good idea to improve it.
Proofs for this transform: https://rise4fun.com/Alive/mgu
This transform is surprisingly frustrating.
This does not deal with non-splat shift amounts, or with undef shift amounts.
I've outlined what i think the solution should be:
```
// Potential handling of non-splats: for each element:
// * if both are undef, replace with constant 0.
// Because (1<<0) is OK and is 1, and ((1<<0)>>1) is also OK and is 0.
// * if both are not undef, and are different, bailout.
// * else, only one is undef, then pick the non-undef one.
```
The DAGCombine will reverse this transform, see
https://reviews.llvm.org/D49266
Reviewers: spatel, craig.topper
Reviewed By: spatel
Subscribers: JDevlieghere, rkruppe, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D49320
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@337190 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
