llvm-project/llvm/test/CodeGen/X86/urem-seteq.ll

Ignoring revisions in .git-blame-ignore-revs. Click here to bypass and see the normal blame view.

359 lines
11 KiB
LLVM
Raw Normal View History

; NOTE: Assertions have been autogenerated by utils/update_llc_test_checks.py
; RUN: llc -mtriple=i686-unknown-linux-gnu < %s | FileCheck %s --check-prefixes=CHECK,X86
; RUN: llc -mtriple=x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu < %s | FileCheck %s --check-prefixes=CHECK,X64
;------------------------------------------------------------------------------;
; Odd divisors
;------------------------------------------------------------------------------;
define i32 @test_urem_odd(i32 %X) nounwind {
; X86-LABEL: test_urem_odd:
; X86: # %bb.0:
[CodeGen] [SelectionDAG] More efficient code for X % C == 0 (UREM case) (try 3) Summary: I'm submitting a new revision since i don't understand how to reclaim/reopen/take over the existing one, D50222. There is no such action in "Add Action" menu... This implements an optimization described in Hacker's Delight 10-17: when `C` is constant, the result of `X % C == 0` can be computed more cheaply without actually calculating the remainder. The motivation is discussed here: https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=35479. This is a recommit, the original commit rL364563 was reverted in rL364568 because test-suite detected miscompile - the new comparison constant 'Q' was being computed incorrectly (we divided by `D0` instead of `D`). Original patch D50222 by @hermord (Dmytro Shynkevych) Notes: - In principle, it's possible to also handle the `X % C1 == C2` case, as discussed on bugzilla. This seems to require an extra branch on overflow, so I refrained from implementing this for now. - An explicit check for when the `REM` can be reduced to just its LHS is included: the `X % C` == 0 optimization breaks `test1` in `test/CodeGen/X86/jump_sign.ll` otherwise. I hadn't managed to find a better way to not generate worse output in this case. - The `test/CodeGen/X86/jump_sign.ll` regresses, and is being fixed by a followup patch D63390. Reviewers: RKSimon, craig.topper, spatel, hermord, xbolva00 Reviewed By: RKSimon, xbolva00 Subscribers: dexonsmith, kristina, xbolva00, javed.absar, llvm-commits, hermord Tags: #llvm Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D63391 llvm-svn: 364600
2019-06-28 05:52:10 +08:00
; X86-NEXT: imull $-858993459, {{[0-9]+}}(%esp), %ecx # imm = 0xCCCCCCCD
; X86-NEXT: xorl %eax, %eax
[CodeGen] [SelectionDAG] More efficient code for X % C == 0 (UREM case) (try 3) Summary: I'm submitting a new revision since i don't understand how to reclaim/reopen/take over the existing one, D50222. There is no such action in "Add Action" menu... This implements an optimization described in Hacker's Delight 10-17: when `C` is constant, the result of `X % C == 0` can be computed more cheaply without actually calculating the remainder. The motivation is discussed here: https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=35479. This is a recommit, the original commit rL364563 was reverted in rL364568 because test-suite detected miscompile - the new comparison constant 'Q' was being computed incorrectly (we divided by `D0` instead of `D`). Original patch D50222 by @hermord (Dmytro Shynkevych) Notes: - In principle, it's possible to also handle the `X % C1 == C2` case, as discussed on bugzilla. This seems to require an extra branch on overflow, so I refrained from implementing this for now. - An explicit check for when the `REM` can be reduced to just its LHS is included: the `X % C` == 0 optimization breaks `test1` in `test/CodeGen/X86/jump_sign.ll` otherwise. I hadn't managed to find a better way to not generate worse output in this case. - The `test/CodeGen/X86/jump_sign.ll` regresses, and is being fixed by a followup patch D63390. Reviewers: RKSimon, craig.topper, spatel, hermord, xbolva00 Reviewed By: RKSimon, xbolva00 Subscribers: dexonsmith, kristina, xbolva00, javed.absar, llvm-commits, hermord Tags: #llvm Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D63391 llvm-svn: 364600
2019-06-28 05:52:10 +08:00
; X86-NEXT: cmpl $858993460, %ecx # imm = 0x33333334
; X86-NEXT: setb %al
; X86-NEXT: retl
;
; X64-LABEL: test_urem_odd:
; X64: # %bb.0:
[CodeGen] [SelectionDAG] More efficient code for X % C == 0 (UREM case) (try 3) Summary: I'm submitting a new revision since i don't understand how to reclaim/reopen/take over the existing one, D50222. There is no such action in "Add Action" menu... This implements an optimization described in Hacker's Delight 10-17: when `C` is constant, the result of `X % C == 0` can be computed more cheaply without actually calculating the remainder. The motivation is discussed here: https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=35479. This is a recommit, the original commit rL364563 was reverted in rL364568 because test-suite detected miscompile - the new comparison constant 'Q' was being computed incorrectly (we divided by `D0` instead of `D`). Original patch D50222 by @hermord (Dmytro Shynkevych) Notes: - In principle, it's possible to also handle the `X % C1 == C2` case, as discussed on bugzilla. This seems to require an extra branch on overflow, so I refrained from implementing this for now. - An explicit check for when the `REM` can be reduced to just its LHS is included: the `X % C` == 0 optimization breaks `test1` in `test/CodeGen/X86/jump_sign.ll` otherwise. I hadn't managed to find a better way to not generate worse output in this case. - The `test/CodeGen/X86/jump_sign.ll` regresses, and is being fixed by a followup patch D63390. Reviewers: RKSimon, craig.topper, spatel, hermord, xbolva00 Reviewed By: RKSimon, xbolva00 Subscribers: dexonsmith, kristina, xbolva00, javed.absar, llvm-commits, hermord Tags: #llvm Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D63391 llvm-svn: 364600
2019-06-28 05:52:10 +08:00
; X64-NEXT: imull $-858993459, %edi, %ecx # imm = 0xCCCCCCCD
; X64-NEXT: xorl %eax, %eax
[CodeGen] [SelectionDAG] More efficient code for X % C == 0 (UREM case) (try 3) Summary: I'm submitting a new revision since i don't understand how to reclaim/reopen/take over the existing one, D50222. There is no such action in "Add Action" menu... This implements an optimization described in Hacker's Delight 10-17: when `C` is constant, the result of `X % C == 0` can be computed more cheaply without actually calculating the remainder. The motivation is discussed here: https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=35479. This is a recommit, the original commit rL364563 was reverted in rL364568 because test-suite detected miscompile - the new comparison constant 'Q' was being computed incorrectly (we divided by `D0` instead of `D`). Original patch D50222 by @hermord (Dmytro Shynkevych) Notes: - In principle, it's possible to also handle the `X % C1 == C2` case, as discussed on bugzilla. This seems to require an extra branch on overflow, so I refrained from implementing this for now. - An explicit check for when the `REM` can be reduced to just its LHS is included: the `X % C` == 0 optimization breaks `test1` in `test/CodeGen/X86/jump_sign.ll` otherwise. I hadn't managed to find a better way to not generate worse output in this case. - The `test/CodeGen/X86/jump_sign.ll` regresses, and is being fixed by a followup patch D63390. Reviewers: RKSimon, craig.topper, spatel, hermord, xbolva00 Reviewed By: RKSimon, xbolva00 Subscribers: dexonsmith, kristina, xbolva00, javed.absar, llvm-commits, hermord Tags: #llvm Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D63391 llvm-svn: 364600
2019-06-28 05:52:10 +08:00
; X64-NEXT: cmpl $858993460, %ecx # imm = 0x33333334
; X64-NEXT: setb %al
; X64-NEXT: retq
%urem = urem i32 %X, 5
%cmp = icmp eq i32 %urem, 0
%ret = zext i1 %cmp to i32
ret i32 %ret
}
define i32 @test_urem_odd_25(i32 %X) nounwind {
; X86-LABEL: test_urem_odd_25:
; X86: # %bb.0:
; X86-NEXT: imull $-1030792151, {{[0-9]+}}(%esp), %ecx # imm = 0xC28F5C29
; X86-NEXT: xorl %eax, %eax
; X86-NEXT: cmpl $171798692, %ecx # imm = 0xA3D70A4
; X86-NEXT: setb %al
; X86-NEXT: retl
;
; X64-LABEL: test_urem_odd_25:
; X64: # %bb.0:
; X64-NEXT: imull $-1030792151, %edi, %ecx # imm = 0xC28F5C29
; X64-NEXT: xorl %eax, %eax
; X64-NEXT: cmpl $171798692, %ecx # imm = 0xA3D70A4
; X64-NEXT: setb %al
; X64-NEXT: retq
%urem = urem i32 %X, 25
%cmp = icmp eq i32 %urem, 0
%ret = zext i1 %cmp to i32
ret i32 %ret
}
; This is like test_urem_odd, except the divisor has bit 30 set.
define i32 @test_urem_odd_bit30(i32 %X) nounwind {
; X86-LABEL: test_urem_odd_bit30:
; X86: # %bb.0:
[CodeGen] [SelectionDAG] More efficient code for X % C == 0 (UREM case) (try 3) Summary: I'm submitting a new revision since i don't understand how to reclaim/reopen/take over the existing one, D50222. There is no such action in "Add Action" menu... This implements an optimization described in Hacker's Delight 10-17: when `C` is constant, the result of `X % C == 0` can be computed more cheaply without actually calculating the remainder. The motivation is discussed here: https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=35479. This is a recommit, the original commit rL364563 was reverted in rL364568 because test-suite detected miscompile - the new comparison constant 'Q' was being computed incorrectly (we divided by `D0` instead of `D`). Original patch D50222 by @hermord (Dmytro Shynkevych) Notes: - In principle, it's possible to also handle the `X % C1 == C2` case, as discussed on bugzilla. This seems to require an extra branch on overflow, so I refrained from implementing this for now. - An explicit check for when the `REM` can be reduced to just its LHS is included: the `X % C` == 0 optimization breaks `test1` in `test/CodeGen/X86/jump_sign.ll` otherwise. I hadn't managed to find a better way to not generate worse output in this case. - The `test/CodeGen/X86/jump_sign.ll` regresses, and is being fixed by a followup patch D63390. Reviewers: RKSimon, craig.topper, spatel, hermord, xbolva00 Reviewed By: RKSimon, xbolva00 Subscribers: dexonsmith, kristina, xbolva00, javed.absar, llvm-commits, hermord Tags: #llvm Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D63391 llvm-svn: 364600
2019-06-28 05:52:10 +08:00
; X86-NEXT: imull $1789569707, {{[0-9]+}}(%esp), %ecx # imm = 0x6AAAAAAB
; X86-NEXT: xorl %eax, %eax
[CodeGen] [SelectionDAG] More efficient code for X % C == 0 (UREM case) (try 3) Summary: I'm submitting a new revision since i don't understand how to reclaim/reopen/take over the existing one, D50222. There is no such action in "Add Action" menu... This implements an optimization described in Hacker's Delight 10-17: when `C` is constant, the result of `X % C == 0` can be computed more cheaply without actually calculating the remainder. The motivation is discussed here: https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=35479. This is a recommit, the original commit rL364563 was reverted in rL364568 because test-suite detected miscompile - the new comparison constant 'Q' was being computed incorrectly (we divided by `D0` instead of `D`). Original patch D50222 by @hermord (Dmytro Shynkevych) Notes: - In principle, it's possible to also handle the `X % C1 == C2` case, as discussed on bugzilla. This seems to require an extra branch on overflow, so I refrained from implementing this for now. - An explicit check for when the `REM` can be reduced to just its LHS is included: the `X % C` == 0 optimization breaks `test1` in `test/CodeGen/X86/jump_sign.ll` otherwise. I hadn't managed to find a better way to not generate worse output in this case. - The `test/CodeGen/X86/jump_sign.ll` regresses, and is being fixed by a followup patch D63390. Reviewers: RKSimon, craig.topper, spatel, hermord, xbolva00 Reviewed By: RKSimon, xbolva00 Subscribers: dexonsmith, kristina, xbolva00, javed.absar, llvm-commits, hermord Tags: #llvm Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D63391 llvm-svn: 364600
2019-06-28 05:52:10 +08:00
; X86-NEXT: cmpl $4, %ecx
; X86-NEXT: setb %al
; X86-NEXT: retl
;
; X64-LABEL: test_urem_odd_bit30:
; X64: # %bb.0:
[CodeGen] [SelectionDAG] More efficient code for X % C == 0 (UREM case) (try 3) Summary: I'm submitting a new revision since i don't understand how to reclaim/reopen/take over the existing one, D50222. There is no such action in "Add Action" menu... This implements an optimization described in Hacker's Delight 10-17: when `C` is constant, the result of `X % C == 0` can be computed more cheaply without actually calculating the remainder. The motivation is discussed here: https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=35479. This is a recommit, the original commit rL364563 was reverted in rL364568 because test-suite detected miscompile - the new comparison constant 'Q' was being computed incorrectly (we divided by `D0` instead of `D`). Original patch D50222 by @hermord (Dmytro Shynkevych) Notes: - In principle, it's possible to also handle the `X % C1 == C2` case, as discussed on bugzilla. This seems to require an extra branch on overflow, so I refrained from implementing this for now. - An explicit check for when the `REM` can be reduced to just its LHS is included: the `X % C` == 0 optimization breaks `test1` in `test/CodeGen/X86/jump_sign.ll` otherwise. I hadn't managed to find a better way to not generate worse output in this case. - The `test/CodeGen/X86/jump_sign.ll` regresses, and is being fixed by a followup patch D63390. Reviewers: RKSimon, craig.topper, spatel, hermord, xbolva00 Reviewed By: RKSimon, xbolva00 Subscribers: dexonsmith, kristina, xbolva00, javed.absar, llvm-commits, hermord Tags: #llvm Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D63391 llvm-svn: 364600
2019-06-28 05:52:10 +08:00
; X64-NEXT: imull $1789569707, %edi, %ecx # imm = 0x6AAAAAAB
; X64-NEXT: xorl %eax, %eax
[CodeGen] [SelectionDAG] More efficient code for X % C == 0 (UREM case) (try 3) Summary: I'm submitting a new revision since i don't understand how to reclaim/reopen/take over the existing one, D50222. There is no such action in "Add Action" menu... This implements an optimization described in Hacker's Delight 10-17: when `C` is constant, the result of `X % C == 0` can be computed more cheaply without actually calculating the remainder. The motivation is discussed here: https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=35479. This is a recommit, the original commit rL364563 was reverted in rL364568 because test-suite detected miscompile - the new comparison constant 'Q' was being computed incorrectly (we divided by `D0` instead of `D`). Original patch D50222 by @hermord (Dmytro Shynkevych) Notes: - In principle, it's possible to also handle the `X % C1 == C2` case, as discussed on bugzilla. This seems to require an extra branch on overflow, so I refrained from implementing this for now. - An explicit check for when the `REM` can be reduced to just its LHS is included: the `X % C` == 0 optimization breaks `test1` in `test/CodeGen/X86/jump_sign.ll` otherwise. I hadn't managed to find a better way to not generate worse output in this case. - The `test/CodeGen/X86/jump_sign.ll` regresses, and is being fixed by a followup patch D63390. Reviewers: RKSimon, craig.topper, spatel, hermord, xbolva00 Reviewed By: RKSimon, xbolva00 Subscribers: dexonsmith, kristina, xbolva00, javed.absar, llvm-commits, hermord Tags: #llvm Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D63391 llvm-svn: 364600
2019-06-28 05:52:10 +08:00
; X64-NEXT: cmpl $4, %ecx
; X64-NEXT: setb %al
; X64-NEXT: retq
%urem = urem i32 %X, 1073741827
%cmp = icmp eq i32 %urem, 0
%ret = zext i1 %cmp to i32
ret i32 %ret
}
; This is like test_urem_odd, except the divisor has bit 31 set.
define i32 @test_urem_odd_bit31(i32 %X) nounwind {
; X86-LABEL: test_urem_odd_bit31:
; X86: # %bb.0:
[CodeGen] [SelectionDAG] More efficient code for X % C == 0 (UREM case) (try 3) Summary: I'm submitting a new revision since i don't understand how to reclaim/reopen/take over the existing one, D50222. There is no such action in "Add Action" menu... This implements an optimization described in Hacker's Delight 10-17: when `C` is constant, the result of `X % C == 0` can be computed more cheaply without actually calculating the remainder. The motivation is discussed here: https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=35479. This is a recommit, the original commit rL364563 was reverted in rL364568 because test-suite detected miscompile - the new comparison constant 'Q' was being computed incorrectly (we divided by `D0` instead of `D`). Original patch D50222 by @hermord (Dmytro Shynkevych) Notes: - In principle, it's possible to also handle the `X % C1 == C2` case, as discussed on bugzilla. This seems to require an extra branch on overflow, so I refrained from implementing this for now. - An explicit check for when the `REM` can be reduced to just its LHS is included: the `X % C` == 0 optimization breaks `test1` in `test/CodeGen/X86/jump_sign.ll` otherwise. I hadn't managed to find a better way to not generate worse output in this case. - The `test/CodeGen/X86/jump_sign.ll` regresses, and is being fixed by a followup patch D63390. Reviewers: RKSimon, craig.topper, spatel, hermord, xbolva00 Reviewed By: RKSimon, xbolva00 Subscribers: dexonsmith, kristina, xbolva00, javed.absar, llvm-commits, hermord Tags: #llvm Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D63391 llvm-svn: 364600
2019-06-28 05:52:10 +08:00
; X86-NEXT: imull $715827883, {{[0-9]+}}(%esp), %ecx # imm = 0x2AAAAAAB
; X86-NEXT: xorl %eax, %eax
[CodeGen] [SelectionDAG] More efficient code for X % C == 0 (UREM case) (try 3) Summary: I'm submitting a new revision since i don't understand how to reclaim/reopen/take over the existing one, D50222. There is no such action in "Add Action" menu... This implements an optimization described in Hacker's Delight 10-17: when `C` is constant, the result of `X % C == 0` can be computed more cheaply without actually calculating the remainder. The motivation is discussed here: https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=35479. This is a recommit, the original commit rL364563 was reverted in rL364568 because test-suite detected miscompile - the new comparison constant 'Q' was being computed incorrectly (we divided by `D0` instead of `D`). Original patch D50222 by @hermord (Dmytro Shynkevych) Notes: - In principle, it's possible to also handle the `X % C1 == C2` case, as discussed on bugzilla. This seems to require an extra branch on overflow, so I refrained from implementing this for now. - An explicit check for when the `REM` can be reduced to just its LHS is included: the `X % C` == 0 optimization breaks `test1` in `test/CodeGen/X86/jump_sign.ll` otherwise. I hadn't managed to find a better way to not generate worse output in this case. - The `test/CodeGen/X86/jump_sign.ll` regresses, and is being fixed by a followup patch D63390. Reviewers: RKSimon, craig.topper, spatel, hermord, xbolva00 Reviewed By: RKSimon, xbolva00 Subscribers: dexonsmith, kristina, xbolva00, javed.absar, llvm-commits, hermord Tags: #llvm Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D63391 llvm-svn: 364600
2019-06-28 05:52:10 +08:00
; X86-NEXT: cmpl $2, %ecx
; X86-NEXT: setb %al
; X86-NEXT: retl
;
; X64-LABEL: test_urem_odd_bit31:
; X64: # %bb.0:
[CodeGen] [SelectionDAG] More efficient code for X % C == 0 (UREM case) (try 3) Summary: I'm submitting a new revision since i don't understand how to reclaim/reopen/take over the existing one, D50222. There is no such action in "Add Action" menu... This implements an optimization described in Hacker's Delight 10-17: when `C` is constant, the result of `X % C == 0` can be computed more cheaply without actually calculating the remainder. The motivation is discussed here: https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=35479. This is a recommit, the original commit rL364563 was reverted in rL364568 because test-suite detected miscompile - the new comparison constant 'Q' was being computed incorrectly (we divided by `D0` instead of `D`). Original patch D50222 by @hermord (Dmytro Shynkevych) Notes: - In principle, it's possible to also handle the `X % C1 == C2` case, as discussed on bugzilla. This seems to require an extra branch on overflow, so I refrained from implementing this for now. - An explicit check for when the `REM` can be reduced to just its LHS is included: the `X % C` == 0 optimization breaks `test1` in `test/CodeGen/X86/jump_sign.ll` otherwise. I hadn't managed to find a better way to not generate worse output in this case. - The `test/CodeGen/X86/jump_sign.ll` regresses, and is being fixed by a followup patch D63390. Reviewers: RKSimon, craig.topper, spatel, hermord, xbolva00 Reviewed By: RKSimon, xbolva00 Subscribers: dexonsmith, kristina, xbolva00, javed.absar, llvm-commits, hermord Tags: #llvm Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D63391 llvm-svn: 364600
2019-06-28 05:52:10 +08:00
; X64-NEXT: imull $715827883, %edi, %ecx # imm = 0x2AAAAAAB
; X64-NEXT: xorl %eax, %eax
[CodeGen] [SelectionDAG] More efficient code for X % C == 0 (UREM case) (try 3) Summary: I'm submitting a new revision since i don't understand how to reclaim/reopen/take over the existing one, D50222. There is no such action in "Add Action" menu... This implements an optimization described in Hacker's Delight 10-17: when `C` is constant, the result of `X % C == 0` can be computed more cheaply without actually calculating the remainder. The motivation is discussed here: https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=35479. This is a recommit, the original commit rL364563 was reverted in rL364568 because test-suite detected miscompile - the new comparison constant 'Q' was being computed incorrectly (we divided by `D0` instead of `D`). Original patch D50222 by @hermord (Dmytro Shynkevych) Notes: - In principle, it's possible to also handle the `X % C1 == C2` case, as discussed on bugzilla. This seems to require an extra branch on overflow, so I refrained from implementing this for now. - An explicit check for when the `REM` can be reduced to just its LHS is included: the `X % C` == 0 optimization breaks `test1` in `test/CodeGen/X86/jump_sign.ll` otherwise. I hadn't managed to find a better way to not generate worse output in this case. - The `test/CodeGen/X86/jump_sign.ll` regresses, and is being fixed by a followup patch D63390. Reviewers: RKSimon, craig.topper, spatel, hermord, xbolva00 Reviewed By: RKSimon, xbolva00 Subscribers: dexonsmith, kristina, xbolva00, javed.absar, llvm-commits, hermord Tags: #llvm Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D63391 llvm-svn: 364600
2019-06-28 05:52:10 +08:00
; X64-NEXT: cmpl $2, %ecx
; X64-NEXT: setb %al
; X64-NEXT: retq
%urem = urem i32 %X, 2147483651
%cmp = icmp eq i32 %urem, 0
%ret = zext i1 %cmp to i32
ret i32 %ret
}
;------------------------------------------------------------------------------;
; Even divisors
;------------------------------------------------------------------------------;
define i16 @test_urem_even(i16 %X) nounwind {
; X86-LABEL: test_urem_even:
; X86: # %bb.0:
[CodeGen] [SelectionDAG] More efficient code for X % C == 0 (UREM case) (try 3) Summary: I'm submitting a new revision since i don't understand how to reclaim/reopen/take over the existing one, D50222. There is no such action in "Add Action" menu... This implements an optimization described in Hacker's Delight 10-17: when `C` is constant, the result of `X % C == 0` can be computed more cheaply without actually calculating the remainder. The motivation is discussed here: https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=35479. This is a recommit, the original commit rL364563 was reverted in rL364568 because test-suite detected miscompile - the new comparison constant 'Q' was being computed incorrectly (we divided by `D0` instead of `D`). Original patch D50222 by @hermord (Dmytro Shynkevych) Notes: - In principle, it's possible to also handle the `X % C1 == C2` case, as discussed on bugzilla. This seems to require an extra branch on overflow, so I refrained from implementing this for now. - An explicit check for when the `REM` can be reduced to just its LHS is included: the `X % C` == 0 optimization breaks `test1` in `test/CodeGen/X86/jump_sign.ll` otherwise. I hadn't managed to find a better way to not generate worse output in this case. - The `test/CodeGen/X86/jump_sign.ll` regresses, and is being fixed by a followup patch D63390. Reviewers: RKSimon, craig.topper, spatel, hermord, xbolva00 Reviewed By: RKSimon, xbolva00 Subscribers: dexonsmith, kristina, xbolva00, javed.absar, llvm-commits, hermord Tags: #llvm Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D63391 llvm-svn: 364600
2019-06-28 05:52:10 +08:00
; X86-NEXT: imull $28087, {{[0-9]+}}(%esp), %eax # imm = 0x6DB7
; X86-NEXT: rorw %ax
; X86-NEXT: movzwl %ax, %ecx
; X86-NEXT: xorl %eax, %eax
[CodeGen] [SelectionDAG] More efficient code for X % C == 0 (UREM case) (try 3) Summary: I'm submitting a new revision since i don't understand how to reclaim/reopen/take over the existing one, D50222. There is no such action in "Add Action" menu... This implements an optimization described in Hacker's Delight 10-17: when `C` is constant, the result of `X % C == 0` can be computed more cheaply without actually calculating the remainder. The motivation is discussed here: https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=35479. This is a recommit, the original commit rL364563 was reverted in rL364568 because test-suite detected miscompile - the new comparison constant 'Q' was being computed incorrectly (we divided by `D0` instead of `D`). Original patch D50222 by @hermord (Dmytro Shynkevych) Notes: - In principle, it's possible to also handle the `X % C1 == C2` case, as discussed on bugzilla. This seems to require an extra branch on overflow, so I refrained from implementing this for now. - An explicit check for when the `REM` can be reduced to just its LHS is included: the `X % C` == 0 optimization breaks `test1` in `test/CodeGen/X86/jump_sign.ll` otherwise. I hadn't managed to find a better way to not generate worse output in this case. - The `test/CodeGen/X86/jump_sign.ll` regresses, and is being fixed by a followup patch D63390. Reviewers: RKSimon, craig.topper, spatel, hermord, xbolva00 Reviewed By: RKSimon, xbolva00 Subscribers: dexonsmith, kristina, xbolva00, javed.absar, llvm-commits, hermord Tags: #llvm Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D63391 llvm-svn: 364600
2019-06-28 05:52:10 +08:00
; X86-NEXT: cmpl $4681, %ecx # imm = 0x1249
; X86-NEXT: seta %al
; X86-NEXT: # kill: def $ax killed $ax killed $eax
; X86-NEXT: retl
;
; X64-LABEL: test_urem_even:
; X64: # %bb.0:
[CodeGen] [SelectionDAG] More efficient code for X % C == 0 (UREM case) (try 3) Summary: I'm submitting a new revision since i don't understand how to reclaim/reopen/take over the existing one, D50222. There is no such action in "Add Action" menu... This implements an optimization described in Hacker's Delight 10-17: when `C` is constant, the result of `X % C == 0` can be computed more cheaply without actually calculating the remainder. The motivation is discussed here: https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=35479. This is a recommit, the original commit rL364563 was reverted in rL364568 because test-suite detected miscompile - the new comparison constant 'Q' was being computed incorrectly (we divided by `D0` instead of `D`). Original patch D50222 by @hermord (Dmytro Shynkevych) Notes: - In principle, it's possible to also handle the `X % C1 == C2` case, as discussed on bugzilla. This seems to require an extra branch on overflow, so I refrained from implementing this for now. - An explicit check for when the `REM` can be reduced to just its LHS is included: the `X % C` == 0 optimization breaks `test1` in `test/CodeGen/X86/jump_sign.ll` otherwise. I hadn't managed to find a better way to not generate worse output in this case. - The `test/CodeGen/X86/jump_sign.ll` regresses, and is being fixed by a followup patch D63390. Reviewers: RKSimon, craig.topper, spatel, hermord, xbolva00 Reviewed By: RKSimon, xbolva00 Subscribers: dexonsmith, kristina, xbolva00, javed.absar, llvm-commits, hermord Tags: #llvm Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D63391 llvm-svn: 364600
2019-06-28 05:52:10 +08:00
; X64-NEXT: imull $28087, %edi, %eax # imm = 0x6DB7
; X64-NEXT: rorw %ax
; X64-NEXT: movzwl %ax, %ecx
; X64-NEXT: xorl %eax, %eax
[CodeGen] [SelectionDAG] More efficient code for X % C == 0 (UREM case) (try 3) Summary: I'm submitting a new revision since i don't understand how to reclaim/reopen/take over the existing one, D50222. There is no such action in "Add Action" menu... This implements an optimization described in Hacker's Delight 10-17: when `C` is constant, the result of `X % C == 0` can be computed more cheaply without actually calculating the remainder. The motivation is discussed here: https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=35479. This is a recommit, the original commit rL364563 was reverted in rL364568 because test-suite detected miscompile - the new comparison constant 'Q' was being computed incorrectly (we divided by `D0` instead of `D`). Original patch D50222 by @hermord (Dmytro Shynkevych) Notes: - In principle, it's possible to also handle the `X % C1 == C2` case, as discussed on bugzilla. This seems to require an extra branch on overflow, so I refrained from implementing this for now. - An explicit check for when the `REM` can be reduced to just its LHS is included: the `X % C` == 0 optimization breaks `test1` in `test/CodeGen/X86/jump_sign.ll` otherwise. I hadn't managed to find a better way to not generate worse output in this case. - The `test/CodeGen/X86/jump_sign.ll` regresses, and is being fixed by a followup patch D63390. Reviewers: RKSimon, craig.topper, spatel, hermord, xbolva00 Reviewed By: RKSimon, xbolva00 Subscribers: dexonsmith, kristina, xbolva00, javed.absar, llvm-commits, hermord Tags: #llvm Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D63391 llvm-svn: 364600
2019-06-28 05:52:10 +08:00
; X64-NEXT: cmpl $4681, %ecx # imm = 0x1249
; X64-NEXT: seta %al
; X64-NEXT: # kill: def $ax killed $ax killed $eax
; X64-NEXT: retq
%urem = urem i16 %X, 14
%cmp = icmp ne i16 %urem, 0
%ret = zext i1 %cmp to i16
ret i16 %ret
}
define i32 @test_urem_even_100(i32 %X) nounwind {
; X86-LABEL: test_urem_even_100:
; X86: # %bb.0:
; X86-NEXT: imull $-1030792151, {{[0-9]+}}(%esp), %ecx # imm = 0xC28F5C29
; X86-NEXT: rorl $2, %ecx
; X86-NEXT: xorl %eax, %eax
; X86-NEXT: cmpl $42949673, %ecx # imm = 0x28F5C29
; X86-NEXT: setb %al
; X86-NEXT: retl
;
; X64-LABEL: test_urem_even_100:
; X64: # %bb.0:
; X64-NEXT: imull $-1030792151, %edi, %ecx # imm = 0xC28F5C29
; X64-NEXT: rorl $2, %ecx
; X64-NEXT: xorl %eax, %eax
; X64-NEXT: cmpl $42949673, %ecx # imm = 0x28F5C29
; X64-NEXT: setb %al
; X64-NEXT: retq
%urem = urem i32 %X, 100
%cmp = icmp eq i32 %urem, 0
%ret = zext i1 %cmp to i32
ret i32 %ret
}
; This is like test_urem_even, except the divisor has bit 30 set.
define i32 @test_urem_even_bit30(i32 %X) nounwind {
; X86-LABEL: test_urem_even_bit30:
; X86: # %bb.0:
[CodeGen] [SelectionDAG] More efficient code for X % C == 0 (UREM case) (try 3) Summary: I'm submitting a new revision since i don't understand how to reclaim/reopen/take over the existing one, D50222. There is no such action in "Add Action" menu... This implements an optimization described in Hacker's Delight 10-17: when `C` is constant, the result of `X % C == 0` can be computed more cheaply without actually calculating the remainder. The motivation is discussed here: https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=35479. This is a recommit, the original commit rL364563 was reverted in rL364568 because test-suite detected miscompile - the new comparison constant 'Q' was being computed incorrectly (we divided by `D0` instead of `D`). Original patch D50222 by @hermord (Dmytro Shynkevych) Notes: - In principle, it's possible to also handle the `X % C1 == C2` case, as discussed on bugzilla. This seems to require an extra branch on overflow, so I refrained from implementing this for now. - An explicit check for when the `REM` can be reduced to just its LHS is included: the `X % C` == 0 optimization breaks `test1` in `test/CodeGen/X86/jump_sign.ll` otherwise. I hadn't managed to find a better way to not generate worse output in this case. - The `test/CodeGen/X86/jump_sign.ll` regresses, and is being fixed by a followup patch D63390. Reviewers: RKSimon, craig.topper, spatel, hermord, xbolva00 Reviewed By: RKSimon, xbolva00 Subscribers: dexonsmith, kristina, xbolva00, javed.absar, llvm-commits, hermord Tags: #llvm Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D63391 llvm-svn: 364600
2019-06-28 05:52:10 +08:00
; X86-NEXT: imull $-51622203, {{[0-9]+}}(%esp), %ecx # imm = 0xFCEC4EC5
; X86-NEXT: rorl $3, %ecx
; X86-NEXT: xorl %eax, %eax
[CodeGen] [SelectionDAG] More efficient code for X % C == 0 (UREM case) (try 3) Summary: I'm submitting a new revision since i don't understand how to reclaim/reopen/take over the existing one, D50222. There is no such action in "Add Action" menu... This implements an optimization described in Hacker's Delight 10-17: when `C` is constant, the result of `X % C == 0` can be computed more cheaply without actually calculating the remainder. The motivation is discussed here: https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=35479. This is a recommit, the original commit rL364563 was reverted in rL364568 because test-suite detected miscompile - the new comparison constant 'Q' was being computed incorrectly (we divided by `D0` instead of `D`). Original patch D50222 by @hermord (Dmytro Shynkevych) Notes: - In principle, it's possible to also handle the `X % C1 == C2` case, as discussed on bugzilla. This seems to require an extra branch on overflow, so I refrained from implementing this for now. - An explicit check for when the `REM` can be reduced to just its LHS is included: the `X % C` == 0 optimization breaks `test1` in `test/CodeGen/X86/jump_sign.ll` otherwise. I hadn't managed to find a better way to not generate worse output in this case. - The `test/CodeGen/X86/jump_sign.ll` regresses, and is being fixed by a followup patch D63390. Reviewers: RKSimon, craig.topper, spatel, hermord, xbolva00 Reviewed By: RKSimon, xbolva00 Subscribers: dexonsmith, kristina, xbolva00, javed.absar, llvm-commits, hermord Tags: #llvm Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D63391 llvm-svn: 364600
2019-06-28 05:52:10 +08:00
; X86-NEXT: cmpl $4, %ecx
; X86-NEXT: setb %al
; X86-NEXT: retl
;
; X64-LABEL: test_urem_even_bit30:
; X64: # %bb.0:
[CodeGen] [SelectionDAG] More efficient code for X % C == 0 (UREM case) (try 3) Summary: I'm submitting a new revision since i don't understand how to reclaim/reopen/take over the existing one, D50222. There is no such action in "Add Action" menu... This implements an optimization described in Hacker's Delight 10-17: when `C` is constant, the result of `X % C == 0` can be computed more cheaply without actually calculating the remainder. The motivation is discussed here: https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=35479. This is a recommit, the original commit rL364563 was reverted in rL364568 because test-suite detected miscompile - the new comparison constant 'Q' was being computed incorrectly (we divided by `D0` instead of `D`). Original patch D50222 by @hermord (Dmytro Shynkevych) Notes: - In principle, it's possible to also handle the `X % C1 == C2` case, as discussed on bugzilla. This seems to require an extra branch on overflow, so I refrained from implementing this for now. - An explicit check for when the `REM` can be reduced to just its LHS is included: the `X % C` == 0 optimization breaks `test1` in `test/CodeGen/X86/jump_sign.ll` otherwise. I hadn't managed to find a better way to not generate worse output in this case. - The `test/CodeGen/X86/jump_sign.ll` regresses, and is being fixed by a followup patch D63390. Reviewers: RKSimon, craig.topper, spatel, hermord, xbolva00 Reviewed By: RKSimon, xbolva00 Subscribers: dexonsmith, kristina, xbolva00, javed.absar, llvm-commits, hermord Tags: #llvm Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D63391 llvm-svn: 364600
2019-06-28 05:52:10 +08:00
; X64-NEXT: imull $-51622203, %edi, %ecx # imm = 0xFCEC4EC5
; X64-NEXT: rorl $3, %ecx
; X64-NEXT: xorl %eax, %eax
[CodeGen] [SelectionDAG] More efficient code for X % C == 0 (UREM case) (try 3) Summary: I'm submitting a new revision since i don't understand how to reclaim/reopen/take over the existing one, D50222. There is no such action in "Add Action" menu... This implements an optimization described in Hacker's Delight 10-17: when `C` is constant, the result of `X % C == 0` can be computed more cheaply without actually calculating the remainder. The motivation is discussed here: https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=35479. This is a recommit, the original commit rL364563 was reverted in rL364568 because test-suite detected miscompile - the new comparison constant 'Q' was being computed incorrectly (we divided by `D0` instead of `D`). Original patch D50222 by @hermord (Dmytro Shynkevych) Notes: - In principle, it's possible to also handle the `X % C1 == C2` case, as discussed on bugzilla. This seems to require an extra branch on overflow, so I refrained from implementing this for now. - An explicit check for when the `REM` can be reduced to just its LHS is included: the `X % C` == 0 optimization breaks `test1` in `test/CodeGen/X86/jump_sign.ll` otherwise. I hadn't managed to find a better way to not generate worse output in this case. - The `test/CodeGen/X86/jump_sign.ll` regresses, and is being fixed by a followup patch D63390. Reviewers: RKSimon, craig.topper, spatel, hermord, xbolva00 Reviewed By: RKSimon, xbolva00 Subscribers: dexonsmith, kristina, xbolva00, javed.absar, llvm-commits, hermord Tags: #llvm Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D63391 llvm-svn: 364600
2019-06-28 05:52:10 +08:00
; X64-NEXT: cmpl $4, %ecx
; X64-NEXT: setb %al
; X64-NEXT: retq
%urem = urem i32 %X, 1073741928
%cmp = icmp eq i32 %urem, 0
%ret = zext i1 %cmp to i32
ret i32 %ret
}
; This is like test_urem_odd, except the divisor has bit 31 set.
define i32 @test_urem_even_bit31(i32 %X) nounwind {
; X86-LABEL: test_urem_even_bit31:
; X86: # %bb.0:
[CodeGen] [SelectionDAG] More efficient code for X % C == 0 (UREM case) (try 3) Summary: I'm submitting a new revision since i don't understand how to reclaim/reopen/take over the existing one, D50222. There is no such action in "Add Action" menu... This implements an optimization described in Hacker's Delight 10-17: when `C` is constant, the result of `X % C == 0` can be computed more cheaply without actually calculating the remainder. The motivation is discussed here: https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=35479. This is a recommit, the original commit rL364563 was reverted in rL364568 because test-suite detected miscompile - the new comparison constant 'Q' was being computed incorrectly (we divided by `D0` instead of `D`). Original patch D50222 by @hermord (Dmytro Shynkevych) Notes: - In principle, it's possible to also handle the `X % C1 == C2` case, as discussed on bugzilla. This seems to require an extra branch on overflow, so I refrained from implementing this for now. - An explicit check for when the `REM` can be reduced to just its LHS is included: the `X % C` == 0 optimization breaks `test1` in `test/CodeGen/X86/jump_sign.ll` otherwise. I hadn't managed to find a better way to not generate worse output in this case. - The `test/CodeGen/X86/jump_sign.ll` regresses, and is being fixed by a followup patch D63390. Reviewers: RKSimon, craig.topper, spatel, hermord, xbolva00 Reviewed By: RKSimon, xbolva00 Subscribers: dexonsmith, kristina, xbolva00, javed.absar, llvm-commits, hermord Tags: #llvm Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D63391 llvm-svn: 364600
2019-06-28 05:52:10 +08:00
; X86-NEXT: imull $-1157956869, {{[0-9]+}}(%esp), %ecx # imm = 0xBAFAFAFB
; X86-NEXT: rorl %ecx
; X86-NEXT: xorl %eax, %eax
[CodeGen] [SelectionDAG] More efficient code for X % C == 0 (UREM case) (try 3) Summary: I'm submitting a new revision since i don't understand how to reclaim/reopen/take over the existing one, D50222. There is no such action in "Add Action" menu... This implements an optimization described in Hacker's Delight 10-17: when `C` is constant, the result of `X % C == 0` can be computed more cheaply without actually calculating the remainder. The motivation is discussed here: https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=35479. This is a recommit, the original commit rL364563 was reverted in rL364568 because test-suite detected miscompile - the new comparison constant 'Q' was being computed incorrectly (we divided by `D0` instead of `D`). Original patch D50222 by @hermord (Dmytro Shynkevych) Notes: - In principle, it's possible to also handle the `X % C1 == C2` case, as discussed on bugzilla. This seems to require an extra branch on overflow, so I refrained from implementing this for now. - An explicit check for when the `REM` can be reduced to just its LHS is included: the `X % C` == 0 optimization breaks `test1` in `test/CodeGen/X86/jump_sign.ll` otherwise. I hadn't managed to find a better way to not generate worse output in this case. - The `test/CodeGen/X86/jump_sign.ll` regresses, and is being fixed by a followup patch D63390. Reviewers: RKSimon, craig.topper, spatel, hermord, xbolva00 Reviewed By: RKSimon, xbolva00 Subscribers: dexonsmith, kristina, xbolva00, javed.absar, llvm-commits, hermord Tags: #llvm Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D63391 llvm-svn: 364600
2019-06-28 05:52:10 +08:00
; X86-NEXT: cmpl $2, %ecx
; X86-NEXT: setb %al
; X86-NEXT: retl
;
; X64-LABEL: test_urem_even_bit31:
; X64: # %bb.0:
[CodeGen] [SelectionDAG] More efficient code for X % C == 0 (UREM case) (try 3) Summary: I'm submitting a new revision since i don't understand how to reclaim/reopen/take over the existing one, D50222. There is no such action in "Add Action" menu... This implements an optimization described in Hacker's Delight 10-17: when `C` is constant, the result of `X % C == 0` can be computed more cheaply without actually calculating the remainder. The motivation is discussed here: https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=35479. This is a recommit, the original commit rL364563 was reverted in rL364568 because test-suite detected miscompile - the new comparison constant 'Q' was being computed incorrectly (we divided by `D0` instead of `D`). Original patch D50222 by @hermord (Dmytro Shynkevych) Notes: - In principle, it's possible to also handle the `X % C1 == C2` case, as discussed on bugzilla. This seems to require an extra branch on overflow, so I refrained from implementing this for now. - An explicit check for when the `REM` can be reduced to just its LHS is included: the `X % C` == 0 optimization breaks `test1` in `test/CodeGen/X86/jump_sign.ll` otherwise. I hadn't managed to find a better way to not generate worse output in this case. - The `test/CodeGen/X86/jump_sign.ll` regresses, and is being fixed by a followup patch D63390. Reviewers: RKSimon, craig.topper, spatel, hermord, xbolva00 Reviewed By: RKSimon, xbolva00 Subscribers: dexonsmith, kristina, xbolva00, javed.absar, llvm-commits, hermord Tags: #llvm Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D63391 llvm-svn: 364600
2019-06-28 05:52:10 +08:00
; X64-NEXT: imull $-1157956869, %edi, %ecx # imm = 0xBAFAFAFB
; X64-NEXT: rorl %ecx
; X64-NEXT: xorl %eax, %eax
[CodeGen] [SelectionDAG] More efficient code for X % C == 0 (UREM case) (try 3) Summary: I'm submitting a new revision since i don't understand how to reclaim/reopen/take over the existing one, D50222. There is no such action in "Add Action" menu... This implements an optimization described in Hacker's Delight 10-17: when `C` is constant, the result of `X % C == 0` can be computed more cheaply without actually calculating the remainder. The motivation is discussed here: https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=35479. This is a recommit, the original commit rL364563 was reverted in rL364568 because test-suite detected miscompile - the new comparison constant 'Q' was being computed incorrectly (we divided by `D0` instead of `D`). Original patch D50222 by @hermord (Dmytro Shynkevych) Notes: - In principle, it's possible to also handle the `X % C1 == C2` case, as discussed on bugzilla. This seems to require an extra branch on overflow, so I refrained from implementing this for now. - An explicit check for when the `REM` can be reduced to just its LHS is included: the `X % C` == 0 optimization breaks `test1` in `test/CodeGen/X86/jump_sign.ll` otherwise. I hadn't managed to find a better way to not generate worse output in this case. - The `test/CodeGen/X86/jump_sign.ll` regresses, and is being fixed by a followup patch D63390. Reviewers: RKSimon, craig.topper, spatel, hermord, xbolva00 Reviewed By: RKSimon, xbolva00 Subscribers: dexonsmith, kristina, xbolva00, javed.absar, llvm-commits, hermord Tags: #llvm Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D63391 llvm-svn: 364600
2019-06-28 05:52:10 +08:00
; X64-NEXT: cmpl $2, %ecx
; X64-NEXT: setb %al
; X64-NEXT: retq
%urem = urem i32 %X, 2147483750
%cmp = icmp eq i32 %urem, 0
%ret = zext i1 %cmp to i32
ret i32 %ret
}
;------------------------------------------------------------------------------;
; Special case
;------------------------------------------------------------------------------;
; 'NE' predicate is fine too.
define i32 @test_urem_odd_setne(i32 %X) nounwind {
; X86-LABEL: test_urem_odd_setne:
; X86: # %bb.0:
; X86-NEXT: imull $-858993459, {{[0-9]+}}(%esp), %ecx # imm = 0xCCCCCCCD
; X86-NEXT: xorl %eax, %eax
; X86-NEXT: cmpl $858993459, %ecx # imm = 0x33333333
; X86-NEXT: seta %al
; X86-NEXT: retl
;
; X64-LABEL: test_urem_odd_setne:
; X64: # %bb.0:
; X64-NEXT: imull $-858993459, %edi, %ecx # imm = 0xCCCCCCCD
; X64-NEXT: xorl %eax, %eax
; X64-NEXT: cmpl $858993459, %ecx # imm = 0x33333333
; X64-NEXT: seta %al
; X64-NEXT: retq
%urem = urem i32 %X, 5
%cmp = icmp ne i32 %urem, 0
%ret = zext i1 %cmp to i32
ret i32 %ret
}
; The fold is only valid for positive divisors, negative-ones should be negated.
define i32 @test_urem_negative_odd(i32 %X) nounwind {
; X86-LABEL: test_urem_negative_odd:
; X86: # %bb.0:
; X86-NEXT: imull $858993459, {{[0-9]+}}(%esp), %ecx # imm = 0x33333333
; X86-NEXT: xorl %eax, %eax
; X86-NEXT: cmpl $1, %ecx
; X86-NEXT: seta %al
; X86-NEXT: retl
;
; X64-LABEL: test_urem_negative_odd:
; X64: # %bb.0:
; X64-NEXT: imull $858993459, %edi, %ecx # imm = 0x33333333
; X64-NEXT: xorl %eax, %eax
; X64-NEXT: cmpl $1, %ecx
; X64-NEXT: seta %al
; X64-NEXT: retq
%urem = urem i32 %X, -5
%cmp = icmp ne i32 %urem, 0
%ret = zext i1 %cmp to i32
ret i32 %ret
}
define i32 @test_urem_negative_even(i32 %X) nounwind {
; X86-LABEL: test_urem_negative_even:
; X86: # %bb.0:
; X86-NEXT: imull $-920350135, {{[0-9]+}}(%esp), %ecx # imm = 0xC9249249
; X86-NEXT: rorl %ecx
; X86-NEXT: xorl %eax, %eax
; X86-NEXT: cmpl $1, %ecx
; X86-NEXT: seta %al
; X86-NEXT: retl
;
; X64-LABEL: test_urem_negative_even:
; X64: # %bb.0:
; X64-NEXT: imull $-920350135, %edi, %ecx # imm = 0xC9249249
; X64-NEXT: rorl %ecx
; X64-NEXT: xorl %eax, %eax
; X64-NEXT: cmpl $1, %ecx
; X64-NEXT: seta %al
; X64-NEXT: retq
%urem = urem i32 %X, -14
%cmp = icmp ne i32 %urem, 0
%ret = zext i1 %cmp to i32
ret i32 %ret
}
;------------------------------------------------------------------------------;
; Negative tests
;------------------------------------------------------------------------------;
; We can lower remainder of division by one much better elsewhere.
define i32 @test_urem_one(i32 %X) nounwind {
; CHECK-LABEL: test_urem_one:
; CHECK: # %bb.0:
; CHECK-NEXT: movl $1, %eax
; CHECK-NEXT: ret{{[l|q]}}
%urem = urem i32 %X, 1
%cmp = icmp eq i32 %urem, 0
%ret = zext i1 %cmp to i32
ret i32 %ret
}
; We can lower remainder of division by powers of two much better elsewhere.
define i32 @test_urem_pow2(i32 %X) nounwind {
; X86-LABEL: test_urem_pow2:
; X86: # %bb.0:
; X86-NEXT: xorl %eax, %eax
; X86-NEXT: testb $15, {{[0-9]+}}(%esp)
; X86-NEXT: sete %al
; X86-NEXT: retl
;
; X64-LABEL: test_urem_pow2:
; X64: # %bb.0:
; X64-NEXT: xorl %eax, %eax
; X64-NEXT: testb $15, %dil
; X64-NEXT: sete %al
; X64-NEXT: retq
%urem = urem i32 %X, 16
%cmp = icmp eq i32 %urem, 0
%ret = zext i1 %cmp to i32
ret i32 %ret
}
; The fold is only valid for positive divisors, and we can't negate INT_MIN.
define i32 @test_urem_int_min(i32 %X) nounwind {
; X86-LABEL: test_urem_int_min:
; X86: # %bb.0:
; X86-NEXT: xorl %eax, %eax
; X86-NEXT: testl $2147483647, {{[0-9]+}}(%esp) # imm = 0x7FFFFFFF
; X86-NEXT: sete %al
; X86-NEXT: retl
;
; X64-LABEL: test_urem_int_min:
; X64: # %bb.0:
; X64-NEXT: xorl %eax, %eax
; X64-NEXT: testl $2147483647, %edi # imm = 0x7FFFFFFF
; X64-NEXT: sete %al
; X64-NEXT: retq
%urem = urem i32 %X, 2147483648
%cmp = icmp eq i32 %urem, 0
%ret = zext i1 %cmp to i32
ret i32 %ret
}
; We can lower remainder of division by all-ones much better elsewhere.
define i32 @test_urem_allones(i32 %X) nounwind {
; X86-LABEL: test_urem_allones:
; X86: # %bb.0:
; X86-NEXT: xorl %ecx, %ecx
; X86-NEXT: subl {{[0-9]+}}(%esp), %ecx
; X86-NEXT: xorl %eax, %eax
; X86-NEXT: cmpl $2, %ecx
; X86-NEXT: setb %al
; X86-NEXT: retl
;
; X64-LABEL: test_urem_allones:
; X64: # %bb.0:
; X64-NEXT: negl %edi
; X64-NEXT: xorl %eax, %eax
; X64-NEXT: cmpl $2, %edi
; X64-NEXT: setb %al
; X64-NEXT: retq
%urem = urem i32 %X, 4294967295
%cmp = icmp eq i32 %urem, 0
%ret = zext i1 %cmp to i32
ret i32 %ret
}