llvm-project/llvm/lib/Analysis/ValueTracking.cpp

4461 lines
171 KiB
C++
Raw Normal View History

//===- ValueTracking.cpp - Walk computations to compute properties --------===//
//
// The LLVM Compiler Infrastructure
//
// This file is distributed under the University of Illinois Open Source
// License. See LICENSE.TXT for details.
//
//===----------------------------------------------------------------------===//
//
// This file contains routines that help analyze properties that chains of
// computations have.
//
//===----------------------------------------------------------------------===//
#include "llvm/Analysis/ValueTracking.h"
#include "llvm/ADT/Optional.h"
#include "llvm/ADT/SmallPtrSet.h"
#include "llvm/Analysis/AssumptionCache.h"
#include "llvm/Analysis/InstructionSimplify.h"
#include "llvm/Analysis/MemoryBuiltins.h"
#include "llvm/Analysis/Loads.h"
#include "llvm/Analysis/LoopInfo.h"
#include "llvm/Analysis/OptimizationDiagnosticInfo.h"
#include "llvm/Analysis/VectorUtils.h"
#include "llvm/IR/CallSite.h"
#include "llvm/IR/ConstantRange.h"
#include "llvm/IR/Constants.h"
#include "llvm/IR/DataLayout.h"
Make use of @llvm.assume in ValueTracking (computeKnownBits, etc.) This change, which allows @llvm.assume to be used from within computeKnownBits (and other associated functions in ValueTracking), adds some (optional) parameters to computeKnownBits and friends. These functions now (optionally) take a "context" instruction pointer, an AssumptionTracker pointer, and also a DomTree pointer, and most of the changes are just to pass this new information when it is easily available from InstSimplify, InstCombine, etc. As explained below, the significant conceptual change is that known properties of a value might depend on the control-flow location of the use (because we care that the @llvm.assume dominates the use because assumptions have control-flow dependencies). This means that, when we ask if bits are known in a value, we might get different answers for different uses. The significant changes are all in ValueTracking. Two main changes: First, as with the rest of the code, new parameters need to be passed around. To make this easier, I grouped them into a structure, and I made internal static versions of the relevant functions that take this structure as a parameter. The new code does as you might expect, it looks for @llvm.assume calls that make use of the value we're trying to learn something about (often indirectly), attempts to pattern match that expression, and uses the result if successful. By making use of the AssumptionTracker, the process of finding @llvm.assume calls is not expensive. Part of the structure being passed around inside ValueTracking is a set of already-considered @llvm.assume calls. This is to prevent a query using, for example, the assume(a == b), to recurse on itself. The context and DT params are used to find applicable assumptions. An assumption needs to dominate the context instruction, or come after it deterministically. In this latter case we only handle the specific case where both the assumption and the context instruction are in the same block, and we need to exclude assumptions from being used to simplify their own ephemeral values (those which contribute only to the assumption) because otherwise the assumption would prove its feeding comparison trivial and would be removed. This commit adds the plumbing and the logic for a simple masked-bit propagation (just enough to write a regression test). Future commits add more patterns (and, correspondingly, more regression tests). llvm-svn: 217342
2014-09-08 02:57:58 +08:00
#include "llvm/IR/Dominators.h"
#include "llvm/IR/GetElementPtrTypeIterator.h"
#include "llvm/IR/GlobalAlias.h"
#include "llvm/IR/GlobalVariable.h"
#include "llvm/IR/Instructions.h"
#include "llvm/IR/IntrinsicInst.h"
#include "llvm/IR/LLVMContext.h"
#include "llvm/IR/Metadata.h"
#include "llvm/IR/Operator.h"
#include "llvm/IR/PatternMatch.h"
#include "llvm/IR/Statepoint.h"
#include "llvm/Support/Debug.h"
#include "llvm/Support/MathExtras.h"
#include <algorithm>
#include <array>
#include <cstring>
using namespace llvm;
using namespace llvm::PatternMatch;
const unsigned MaxDepth = 6;
Infer known bits from dominating conditions This patch adds limited support in ValueTracking for inferring known bits of a value from conditional expressions which must be true to reach the instruction we're trying to optimize. At this time, the feature is off by default. Once landed, I'm hoping for feedback from others on both profitability and compile time impact. Forms of conditional value propagation have been tried in LLVM before and have failed due to compile time problems. In an attempt to side step that, this patch only considers conditions where the edge leaving the branch dominates the context instruction. It does not attempt full dataflow. Even with that restriction, it handles many interesting cases: * Early exits from functions * Early exits from loops (for context instructions in the loop and after the check) * Conditions which control entry into loops, including multi-version loops (such as those produced during vectorization, IRCE, loop unswitch, etc..) Possible applications include optimizing using information provided by constructs such as: preconditions, assumptions, null checks, & range checks. This patch implements two approaches to the problem that need further benchmarking. Approach 1 is to directly walk the dominator tree looking for interesting conditions. Approach 2 is to inspect other uses of the value being queried for interesting comparisons. From initial benchmarking, it appears that Approach 2 is faster than Approach 1, but this needs to be further validated. Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D7708 llvm-svn: 231879
2015-03-11 06:43:20 +08:00
// Controls the number of uses of the value searched for possible
// dominating comparisons.
static cl::opt<unsigned> DomConditionsMaxUses("dom-conditions-max-uses",
cl::Hidden, cl::init(20));
Infer known bits from dominating conditions This patch adds limited support in ValueTracking for inferring known bits of a value from conditional expressions which must be true to reach the instruction we're trying to optimize. At this time, the feature is off by default. Once landed, I'm hoping for feedback from others on both profitability and compile time impact. Forms of conditional value propagation have been tried in LLVM before and have failed due to compile time problems. In an attempt to side step that, this patch only considers conditions where the edge leaving the branch dominates the context instruction. It does not attempt full dataflow. Even with that restriction, it handles many interesting cases: * Early exits from functions * Early exits from loops (for context instructions in the loop and after the check) * Conditions which control entry into loops, including multi-version loops (such as those produced during vectorization, IRCE, loop unswitch, etc..) Possible applications include optimizing using information provided by constructs such as: preconditions, assumptions, null checks, & range checks. This patch implements two approaches to the problem that need further benchmarking. Approach 1 is to directly walk the dominator tree looking for interesting conditions. Approach 2 is to inspect other uses of the value being queried for interesting comparisons. From initial benchmarking, it appears that Approach 2 is faster than Approach 1, but this needs to be further validated. Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D7708 llvm-svn: 231879
2015-03-11 06:43:20 +08:00
// This optimization is known to cause performance regressions is some cases,
// keep it under a temporary flag for now.
static cl::opt<bool>
DontImproveNonNegativePhiBits("dont-improve-non-negative-phi-bits",
cl::Hidden, cl::init(true));
/// Returns the bitwidth of the given scalar or pointer type (if unknown returns
/// 0). For vector types, returns the element type's bitwidth.
static unsigned getBitWidth(Type *Ty, const DataLayout &DL) {
if (unsigned BitWidth = Ty->getScalarSizeInBits())
return BitWidth;
return DL.getPointerTypeSizeInBits(Ty);
}
namespace {
Make use of @llvm.assume in ValueTracking (computeKnownBits, etc.) This change, which allows @llvm.assume to be used from within computeKnownBits (and other associated functions in ValueTracking), adds some (optional) parameters to computeKnownBits and friends. These functions now (optionally) take a "context" instruction pointer, an AssumptionTracker pointer, and also a DomTree pointer, and most of the changes are just to pass this new information when it is easily available from InstSimplify, InstCombine, etc. As explained below, the significant conceptual change is that known properties of a value might depend on the control-flow location of the use (because we care that the @llvm.assume dominates the use because assumptions have control-flow dependencies). This means that, when we ask if bits are known in a value, we might get different answers for different uses. The significant changes are all in ValueTracking. Two main changes: First, as with the rest of the code, new parameters need to be passed around. To make this easier, I grouped them into a structure, and I made internal static versions of the relevant functions that take this structure as a parameter. The new code does as you might expect, it looks for @llvm.assume calls that make use of the value we're trying to learn something about (often indirectly), attempts to pattern match that expression, and uses the result if successful. By making use of the AssumptionTracker, the process of finding @llvm.assume calls is not expensive. Part of the structure being passed around inside ValueTracking is a set of already-considered @llvm.assume calls. This is to prevent a query using, for example, the assume(a == b), to recurse on itself. The context and DT params are used to find applicable assumptions. An assumption needs to dominate the context instruction, or come after it deterministically. In this latter case we only handle the specific case where both the assumption and the context instruction are in the same block, and we need to exclude assumptions from being used to simplify their own ephemeral values (those which contribute only to the assumption) because otherwise the assumption would prove its feeding comparison trivial and would be removed. This commit adds the plumbing and the logic for a simple masked-bit propagation (just enough to write a regression test). Future commits add more patterns (and, correspondingly, more regression tests). llvm-svn: 217342
2014-09-08 02:57:58 +08:00
// Simplifying using an assume can only be done in a particular control-flow
// context (the context instruction provides that context). If an assume and
// the context instruction are not in the same block then the DT helps in
// figuring out if we can use it.
struct Query {
const DataLayout &DL;
AssumptionCache *AC;
Make use of @llvm.assume in ValueTracking (computeKnownBits, etc.) This change, which allows @llvm.assume to be used from within computeKnownBits (and other associated functions in ValueTracking), adds some (optional) parameters to computeKnownBits and friends. These functions now (optionally) take a "context" instruction pointer, an AssumptionTracker pointer, and also a DomTree pointer, and most of the changes are just to pass this new information when it is easily available from InstSimplify, InstCombine, etc. As explained below, the significant conceptual change is that known properties of a value might depend on the control-flow location of the use (because we care that the @llvm.assume dominates the use because assumptions have control-flow dependencies). This means that, when we ask if bits are known in a value, we might get different answers for different uses. The significant changes are all in ValueTracking. Two main changes: First, as with the rest of the code, new parameters need to be passed around. To make this easier, I grouped them into a structure, and I made internal static versions of the relevant functions that take this structure as a parameter. The new code does as you might expect, it looks for @llvm.assume calls that make use of the value we're trying to learn something about (often indirectly), attempts to pattern match that expression, and uses the result if successful. By making use of the AssumptionTracker, the process of finding @llvm.assume calls is not expensive. Part of the structure being passed around inside ValueTracking is a set of already-considered @llvm.assume calls. This is to prevent a query using, for example, the assume(a == b), to recurse on itself. The context and DT params are used to find applicable assumptions. An assumption needs to dominate the context instruction, or come after it deterministically. In this latter case we only handle the specific case where both the assumption and the context instruction are in the same block, and we need to exclude assumptions from being used to simplify their own ephemeral values (those which contribute only to the assumption) because otherwise the assumption would prove its feeding comparison trivial and would be removed. This commit adds the plumbing and the logic for a simple masked-bit propagation (just enough to write a regression test). Future commits add more patterns (and, correspondingly, more regression tests). llvm-svn: 217342
2014-09-08 02:57:58 +08:00
const Instruction *CxtI;
const DominatorTree *DT;
// Unlike the other analyses, this may be a nullptr because not all clients
// provide it currently.
OptimizationRemarkEmitter *ORE;
Make use of @llvm.assume in ValueTracking (computeKnownBits, etc.) This change, which allows @llvm.assume to be used from within computeKnownBits (and other associated functions in ValueTracking), adds some (optional) parameters to computeKnownBits and friends. These functions now (optionally) take a "context" instruction pointer, an AssumptionTracker pointer, and also a DomTree pointer, and most of the changes are just to pass this new information when it is easily available from InstSimplify, InstCombine, etc. As explained below, the significant conceptual change is that known properties of a value might depend on the control-flow location of the use (because we care that the @llvm.assume dominates the use because assumptions have control-flow dependencies). This means that, when we ask if bits are known in a value, we might get different answers for different uses. The significant changes are all in ValueTracking. Two main changes: First, as with the rest of the code, new parameters need to be passed around. To make this easier, I grouped them into a structure, and I made internal static versions of the relevant functions that take this structure as a parameter. The new code does as you might expect, it looks for @llvm.assume calls that make use of the value we're trying to learn something about (often indirectly), attempts to pattern match that expression, and uses the result if successful. By making use of the AssumptionTracker, the process of finding @llvm.assume calls is not expensive. Part of the structure being passed around inside ValueTracking is a set of already-considered @llvm.assume calls. This is to prevent a query using, for example, the assume(a == b), to recurse on itself. The context and DT params are used to find applicable assumptions. An assumption needs to dominate the context instruction, or come after it deterministically. In this latter case we only handle the specific case where both the assumption and the context instruction are in the same block, and we need to exclude assumptions from being used to simplify their own ephemeral values (those which contribute only to the assumption) because otherwise the assumption would prove its feeding comparison trivial and would be removed. This commit adds the plumbing and the logic for a simple masked-bit propagation (just enough to write a regression test). Future commits add more patterns (and, correspondingly, more regression tests). llvm-svn: 217342
2014-09-08 02:57:58 +08:00
/// Set of assumptions that should be excluded from further queries.
/// This is because of the potential for mutual recursion to cause
/// computeKnownBits to repeatedly visit the same assume intrinsic. The
/// classic case of this is assume(x = y), which will attempt to determine
/// bits in x from bits in y, which will attempt to determine bits in y from
/// bits in x, etc. Regarding the mutual recursion, computeKnownBits can call
/// isKnownNonZero, which calls computeKnownBits and ComputeSignBit and
/// isKnownToBeAPowerOfTwo (all of which can call computeKnownBits), and so
/// on.
2016-10-16 03:00:04 +08:00
std::array<const Value *, MaxDepth> Excluded;
unsigned NumExcluded;
Query(const DataLayout &DL, AssumptionCache *AC, const Instruction *CxtI,
const DominatorTree *DT, OptimizationRemarkEmitter *ORE = nullptr)
: DL(DL), AC(AC), CxtI(CxtI), DT(DT), ORE(ORE), NumExcluded(0) {}
Make use of @llvm.assume in ValueTracking (computeKnownBits, etc.) This change, which allows @llvm.assume to be used from within computeKnownBits (and other associated functions in ValueTracking), adds some (optional) parameters to computeKnownBits and friends. These functions now (optionally) take a "context" instruction pointer, an AssumptionTracker pointer, and also a DomTree pointer, and most of the changes are just to pass this new information when it is easily available from InstSimplify, InstCombine, etc. As explained below, the significant conceptual change is that known properties of a value might depend on the control-flow location of the use (because we care that the @llvm.assume dominates the use because assumptions have control-flow dependencies). This means that, when we ask if bits are known in a value, we might get different answers for different uses. The significant changes are all in ValueTracking. Two main changes: First, as with the rest of the code, new parameters need to be passed around. To make this easier, I grouped them into a structure, and I made internal static versions of the relevant functions that take this structure as a parameter. The new code does as you might expect, it looks for @llvm.assume calls that make use of the value we're trying to learn something about (often indirectly), attempts to pattern match that expression, and uses the result if successful. By making use of the AssumptionTracker, the process of finding @llvm.assume calls is not expensive. Part of the structure being passed around inside ValueTracking is a set of already-considered @llvm.assume calls. This is to prevent a query using, for example, the assume(a == b), to recurse on itself. The context and DT params are used to find applicable assumptions. An assumption needs to dominate the context instruction, or come after it deterministically. In this latter case we only handle the specific case where both the assumption and the context instruction are in the same block, and we need to exclude assumptions from being used to simplify their own ephemeral values (those which contribute only to the assumption) because otherwise the assumption would prove its feeding comparison trivial and would be removed. This commit adds the plumbing and the logic for a simple masked-bit propagation (just enough to write a regression test). Future commits add more patterns (and, correspondingly, more regression tests). llvm-svn: 217342
2014-09-08 02:57:58 +08:00
Query(const Query &Q, const Value *NewExcl)
: DL(Q.DL), AC(Q.AC), CxtI(Q.CxtI), DT(Q.DT), ORE(Q.ORE),
NumExcluded(Q.NumExcluded) {
Excluded = Q.Excluded;
Excluded[NumExcluded++] = NewExcl;
assert(NumExcluded <= Excluded.size());
}
bool isExcluded(const Value *Value) const {
if (NumExcluded == 0)
return false;
auto End = Excluded.begin() + NumExcluded;
return std::find(Excluded.begin(), End, Value) != End;
Make use of @llvm.assume in ValueTracking (computeKnownBits, etc.) This change, which allows @llvm.assume to be used from within computeKnownBits (and other associated functions in ValueTracking), adds some (optional) parameters to computeKnownBits and friends. These functions now (optionally) take a "context" instruction pointer, an AssumptionTracker pointer, and also a DomTree pointer, and most of the changes are just to pass this new information when it is easily available from InstSimplify, InstCombine, etc. As explained below, the significant conceptual change is that known properties of a value might depend on the control-flow location of the use (because we care that the @llvm.assume dominates the use because assumptions have control-flow dependencies). This means that, when we ask if bits are known in a value, we might get different answers for different uses. The significant changes are all in ValueTracking. Two main changes: First, as with the rest of the code, new parameters need to be passed around. To make this easier, I grouped them into a structure, and I made internal static versions of the relevant functions that take this structure as a parameter. The new code does as you might expect, it looks for @llvm.assume calls that make use of the value we're trying to learn something about (often indirectly), attempts to pattern match that expression, and uses the result if successful. By making use of the AssumptionTracker, the process of finding @llvm.assume calls is not expensive. Part of the structure being passed around inside ValueTracking is a set of already-considered @llvm.assume calls. This is to prevent a query using, for example, the assume(a == b), to recurse on itself. The context and DT params are used to find applicable assumptions. An assumption needs to dominate the context instruction, or come after it deterministically. In this latter case we only handle the specific case where both the assumption and the context instruction are in the same block, and we need to exclude assumptions from being used to simplify their own ephemeral values (those which contribute only to the assumption) because otherwise the assumption would prove its feeding comparison trivial and would be removed. This commit adds the plumbing and the logic for a simple masked-bit propagation (just enough to write a regression test). Future commits add more patterns (and, correspondingly, more regression tests). llvm-svn: 217342
2014-09-08 02:57:58 +08:00
}
};
} // end anonymous namespace
Make use of @llvm.assume in ValueTracking (computeKnownBits, etc.) This change, which allows @llvm.assume to be used from within computeKnownBits (and other associated functions in ValueTracking), adds some (optional) parameters to computeKnownBits and friends. These functions now (optionally) take a "context" instruction pointer, an AssumptionTracker pointer, and also a DomTree pointer, and most of the changes are just to pass this new information when it is easily available from InstSimplify, InstCombine, etc. As explained below, the significant conceptual change is that known properties of a value might depend on the control-flow location of the use (because we care that the @llvm.assume dominates the use because assumptions have control-flow dependencies). This means that, when we ask if bits are known in a value, we might get different answers for different uses. The significant changes are all in ValueTracking. Two main changes: First, as with the rest of the code, new parameters need to be passed around. To make this easier, I grouped them into a structure, and I made internal static versions of the relevant functions that take this structure as a parameter. The new code does as you might expect, it looks for @llvm.assume calls that make use of the value we're trying to learn something about (often indirectly), attempts to pattern match that expression, and uses the result if successful. By making use of the AssumptionTracker, the process of finding @llvm.assume calls is not expensive. Part of the structure being passed around inside ValueTracking is a set of already-considered @llvm.assume calls. This is to prevent a query using, for example, the assume(a == b), to recurse on itself. The context and DT params are used to find applicable assumptions. An assumption needs to dominate the context instruction, or come after it deterministically. In this latter case we only handle the specific case where both the assumption and the context instruction are in the same block, and we need to exclude assumptions from being used to simplify their own ephemeral values (those which contribute only to the assumption) because otherwise the assumption would prove its feeding comparison trivial and would be removed. This commit adds the plumbing and the logic for a simple masked-bit propagation (just enough to write a regression test). Future commits add more patterns (and, correspondingly, more regression tests). llvm-svn: 217342
2014-09-08 02:57:58 +08:00
2014-11-05 00:09:50 +08:00
// Given the provided Value and, potentially, a context instruction, return
Make use of @llvm.assume in ValueTracking (computeKnownBits, etc.) This change, which allows @llvm.assume to be used from within computeKnownBits (and other associated functions in ValueTracking), adds some (optional) parameters to computeKnownBits and friends. These functions now (optionally) take a "context" instruction pointer, an AssumptionTracker pointer, and also a DomTree pointer, and most of the changes are just to pass this new information when it is easily available from InstSimplify, InstCombine, etc. As explained below, the significant conceptual change is that known properties of a value might depend on the control-flow location of the use (because we care that the @llvm.assume dominates the use because assumptions have control-flow dependencies). This means that, when we ask if bits are known in a value, we might get different answers for different uses. The significant changes are all in ValueTracking. Two main changes: First, as with the rest of the code, new parameters need to be passed around. To make this easier, I grouped them into a structure, and I made internal static versions of the relevant functions that take this structure as a parameter. The new code does as you might expect, it looks for @llvm.assume calls that make use of the value we're trying to learn something about (often indirectly), attempts to pattern match that expression, and uses the result if successful. By making use of the AssumptionTracker, the process of finding @llvm.assume calls is not expensive. Part of the structure being passed around inside ValueTracking is a set of already-considered @llvm.assume calls. This is to prevent a query using, for example, the assume(a == b), to recurse on itself. The context and DT params are used to find applicable assumptions. An assumption needs to dominate the context instruction, or come after it deterministically. In this latter case we only handle the specific case where both the assumption and the context instruction are in the same block, and we need to exclude assumptions from being used to simplify their own ephemeral values (those which contribute only to the assumption) because otherwise the assumption would prove its feeding comparison trivial and would be removed. This commit adds the plumbing and the logic for a simple masked-bit propagation (just enough to write a regression test). Future commits add more patterns (and, correspondingly, more regression tests). llvm-svn: 217342
2014-09-08 02:57:58 +08:00
// the preferred context instruction (if any).
static const Instruction *safeCxtI(const Value *V, const Instruction *CxtI) {
// If we've been provided with a context instruction, then use that (provided
// it has been inserted).
if (CxtI && CxtI->getParent())
return CxtI;
// If the value is really an already-inserted instruction, then use that.
CxtI = dyn_cast<Instruction>(V);
if (CxtI && CxtI->getParent())
return CxtI;
return nullptr;
}
static void computeKnownBits(const Value *V, APInt &KnownZero, APInt &KnownOne,
unsigned Depth, const Query &Q);
Make use of @llvm.assume in ValueTracking (computeKnownBits, etc.) This change, which allows @llvm.assume to be used from within computeKnownBits (and other associated functions in ValueTracking), adds some (optional) parameters to computeKnownBits and friends. These functions now (optionally) take a "context" instruction pointer, an AssumptionTracker pointer, and also a DomTree pointer, and most of the changes are just to pass this new information when it is easily available from InstSimplify, InstCombine, etc. As explained below, the significant conceptual change is that known properties of a value might depend on the control-flow location of the use (because we care that the @llvm.assume dominates the use because assumptions have control-flow dependencies). This means that, when we ask if bits are known in a value, we might get different answers for different uses. The significant changes are all in ValueTracking. Two main changes: First, as with the rest of the code, new parameters need to be passed around. To make this easier, I grouped them into a structure, and I made internal static versions of the relevant functions that take this structure as a parameter. The new code does as you might expect, it looks for @llvm.assume calls that make use of the value we're trying to learn something about (often indirectly), attempts to pattern match that expression, and uses the result if successful. By making use of the AssumptionTracker, the process of finding @llvm.assume calls is not expensive. Part of the structure being passed around inside ValueTracking is a set of already-considered @llvm.assume calls. This is to prevent a query using, for example, the assume(a == b), to recurse on itself. The context and DT params are used to find applicable assumptions. An assumption needs to dominate the context instruction, or come after it deterministically. In this latter case we only handle the specific case where both the assumption and the context instruction are in the same block, and we need to exclude assumptions from being used to simplify their own ephemeral values (those which contribute only to the assumption) because otherwise the assumption would prove its feeding comparison trivial and would be removed. This commit adds the plumbing and the logic for a simple masked-bit propagation (just enough to write a regression test). Future commits add more patterns (and, correspondingly, more regression tests). llvm-svn: 217342
2014-09-08 02:57:58 +08:00
void llvm::computeKnownBits(const Value *V, APInt &KnownZero, APInt &KnownOne,
const DataLayout &DL, unsigned Depth,
AssumptionCache *AC, const Instruction *CxtI,
const DominatorTree *DT,
OptimizationRemarkEmitter *ORE) {
::computeKnownBits(V, KnownZero, KnownOne, Depth,
Query(DL, AC, safeCxtI(V, CxtI), DT, ORE));
Make use of @llvm.assume in ValueTracking (computeKnownBits, etc.) This change, which allows @llvm.assume to be used from within computeKnownBits (and other associated functions in ValueTracking), adds some (optional) parameters to computeKnownBits and friends. These functions now (optionally) take a "context" instruction pointer, an AssumptionTracker pointer, and also a DomTree pointer, and most of the changes are just to pass this new information when it is easily available from InstSimplify, InstCombine, etc. As explained below, the significant conceptual change is that known properties of a value might depend on the control-flow location of the use (because we care that the @llvm.assume dominates the use because assumptions have control-flow dependencies). This means that, when we ask if bits are known in a value, we might get different answers for different uses. The significant changes are all in ValueTracking. Two main changes: First, as with the rest of the code, new parameters need to be passed around. To make this easier, I grouped them into a structure, and I made internal static versions of the relevant functions that take this structure as a parameter. The new code does as you might expect, it looks for @llvm.assume calls that make use of the value we're trying to learn something about (often indirectly), attempts to pattern match that expression, and uses the result if successful. By making use of the AssumptionTracker, the process of finding @llvm.assume calls is not expensive. Part of the structure being passed around inside ValueTracking is a set of already-considered @llvm.assume calls. This is to prevent a query using, for example, the assume(a == b), to recurse on itself. The context and DT params are used to find applicable assumptions. An assumption needs to dominate the context instruction, or come after it deterministically. In this latter case we only handle the specific case where both the assumption and the context instruction are in the same block, and we need to exclude assumptions from being used to simplify their own ephemeral values (those which contribute only to the assumption) because otherwise the assumption would prove its feeding comparison trivial and would be removed. This commit adds the plumbing and the logic for a simple masked-bit propagation (just enough to write a regression test). Future commits add more patterns (and, correspondingly, more regression tests). llvm-svn: 217342
2014-09-08 02:57:58 +08:00
}
bool llvm::haveNoCommonBitsSet(const Value *LHS, const Value *RHS,
const DataLayout &DL,
AssumptionCache *AC, const Instruction *CxtI,
const DominatorTree *DT) {
assert(LHS->getType() == RHS->getType() &&
"LHS and RHS should have the same type");
assert(LHS->getType()->isIntOrIntVectorTy() &&
"LHS and RHS should be integers");
IntegerType *IT = cast<IntegerType>(LHS->getType()->getScalarType());
APInt LHSKnownZero(IT->getBitWidth(), 0), LHSKnownOne(IT->getBitWidth(), 0);
APInt RHSKnownZero(IT->getBitWidth(), 0), RHSKnownOne(IT->getBitWidth(), 0);
computeKnownBits(LHS, LHSKnownZero, LHSKnownOne, DL, 0, AC, CxtI, DT);
computeKnownBits(RHS, RHSKnownZero, RHSKnownOne, DL, 0, AC, CxtI, DT);
return (LHSKnownZero | RHSKnownZero).isAllOnesValue();
}
static void ComputeSignBit(const Value *V, bool &KnownZero, bool &KnownOne,
unsigned Depth, const Query &Q);
Make use of @llvm.assume in ValueTracking (computeKnownBits, etc.) This change, which allows @llvm.assume to be used from within computeKnownBits (and other associated functions in ValueTracking), adds some (optional) parameters to computeKnownBits and friends. These functions now (optionally) take a "context" instruction pointer, an AssumptionTracker pointer, and also a DomTree pointer, and most of the changes are just to pass this new information when it is easily available from InstSimplify, InstCombine, etc. As explained below, the significant conceptual change is that known properties of a value might depend on the control-flow location of the use (because we care that the @llvm.assume dominates the use because assumptions have control-flow dependencies). This means that, when we ask if bits are known in a value, we might get different answers for different uses. The significant changes are all in ValueTracking. Two main changes: First, as with the rest of the code, new parameters need to be passed around. To make this easier, I grouped them into a structure, and I made internal static versions of the relevant functions that take this structure as a parameter. The new code does as you might expect, it looks for @llvm.assume calls that make use of the value we're trying to learn something about (often indirectly), attempts to pattern match that expression, and uses the result if successful. By making use of the AssumptionTracker, the process of finding @llvm.assume calls is not expensive. Part of the structure being passed around inside ValueTracking is a set of already-considered @llvm.assume calls. This is to prevent a query using, for example, the assume(a == b), to recurse on itself. The context and DT params are used to find applicable assumptions. An assumption needs to dominate the context instruction, or come after it deterministically. In this latter case we only handle the specific case where both the assumption and the context instruction are in the same block, and we need to exclude assumptions from being used to simplify their own ephemeral values (those which contribute only to the assumption) because otherwise the assumption would prove its feeding comparison trivial and would be removed. This commit adds the plumbing and the logic for a simple masked-bit propagation (just enough to write a regression test). Future commits add more patterns (and, correspondingly, more regression tests). llvm-svn: 217342
2014-09-08 02:57:58 +08:00
void llvm::ComputeSignBit(const Value *V, bool &KnownZero, bool &KnownOne,
const DataLayout &DL, unsigned Depth,
AssumptionCache *AC, const Instruction *CxtI,
Make use of @llvm.assume in ValueTracking (computeKnownBits, etc.) This change, which allows @llvm.assume to be used from within computeKnownBits (and other associated functions in ValueTracking), adds some (optional) parameters to computeKnownBits and friends. These functions now (optionally) take a "context" instruction pointer, an AssumptionTracker pointer, and also a DomTree pointer, and most of the changes are just to pass this new information when it is easily available from InstSimplify, InstCombine, etc. As explained below, the significant conceptual change is that known properties of a value might depend on the control-flow location of the use (because we care that the @llvm.assume dominates the use because assumptions have control-flow dependencies). This means that, when we ask if bits are known in a value, we might get different answers for different uses. The significant changes are all in ValueTracking. Two main changes: First, as with the rest of the code, new parameters need to be passed around. To make this easier, I grouped them into a structure, and I made internal static versions of the relevant functions that take this structure as a parameter. The new code does as you might expect, it looks for @llvm.assume calls that make use of the value we're trying to learn something about (often indirectly), attempts to pattern match that expression, and uses the result if successful. By making use of the AssumptionTracker, the process of finding @llvm.assume calls is not expensive. Part of the structure being passed around inside ValueTracking is a set of already-considered @llvm.assume calls. This is to prevent a query using, for example, the assume(a == b), to recurse on itself. The context and DT params are used to find applicable assumptions. An assumption needs to dominate the context instruction, or come after it deterministically. In this latter case we only handle the specific case where both the assumption and the context instruction are in the same block, and we need to exclude assumptions from being used to simplify their own ephemeral values (those which contribute only to the assumption) because otherwise the assumption would prove its feeding comparison trivial and would be removed. This commit adds the plumbing and the logic for a simple masked-bit propagation (just enough to write a regression test). Future commits add more patterns (and, correspondingly, more regression tests). llvm-svn: 217342
2014-09-08 02:57:58 +08:00
const DominatorTree *DT) {
::ComputeSignBit(V, KnownZero, KnownOne, Depth,
Query(DL, AC, safeCxtI(V, CxtI), DT));
Make use of @llvm.assume in ValueTracking (computeKnownBits, etc.) This change, which allows @llvm.assume to be used from within computeKnownBits (and other associated functions in ValueTracking), adds some (optional) parameters to computeKnownBits and friends. These functions now (optionally) take a "context" instruction pointer, an AssumptionTracker pointer, and also a DomTree pointer, and most of the changes are just to pass this new information when it is easily available from InstSimplify, InstCombine, etc. As explained below, the significant conceptual change is that known properties of a value might depend on the control-flow location of the use (because we care that the @llvm.assume dominates the use because assumptions have control-flow dependencies). This means that, when we ask if bits are known in a value, we might get different answers for different uses. The significant changes are all in ValueTracking. Two main changes: First, as with the rest of the code, new parameters need to be passed around. To make this easier, I grouped them into a structure, and I made internal static versions of the relevant functions that take this structure as a parameter. The new code does as you might expect, it looks for @llvm.assume calls that make use of the value we're trying to learn something about (often indirectly), attempts to pattern match that expression, and uses the result if successful. By making use of the AssumptionTracker, the process of finding @llvm.assume calls is not expensive. Part of the structure being passed around inside ValueTracking is a set of already-considered @llvm.assume calls. This is to prevent a query using, for example, the assume(a == b), to recurse on itself. The context and DT params are used to find applicable assumptions. An assumption needs to dominate the context instruction, or come after it deterministically. In this latter case we only handle the specific case where both the assumption and the context instruction are in the same block, and we need to exclude assumptions from being used to simplify their own ephemeral values (those which contribute only to the assumption) because otherwise the assumption would prove its feeding comparison trivial and would be removed. This commit adds the plumbing and the logic for a simple masked-bit propagation (just enough to write a regression test). Future commits add more patterns (and, correspondingly, more regression tests). llvm-svn: 217342
2014-09-08 02:57:58 +08:00
}
static bool isKnownToBeAPowerOfTwo(const Value *V, bool OrZero, unsigned Depth,
const Query &Q);
Make use of @llvm.assume in ValueTracking (computeKnownBits, etc.) This change, which allows @llvm.assume to be used from within computeKnownBits (and other associated functions in ValueTracking), adds some (optional) parameters to computeKnownBits and friends. These functions now (optionally) take a "context" instruction pointer, an AssumptionTracker pointer, and also a DomTree pointer, and most of the changes are just to pass this new information when it is easily available from InstSimplify, InstCombine, etc. As explained below, the significant conceptual change is that known properties of a value might depend on the control-flow location of the use (because we care that the @llvm.assume dominates the use because assumptions have control-flow dependencies). This means that, when we ask if bits are known in a value, we might get different answers for different uses. The significant changes are all in ValueTracking. Two main changes: First, as with the rest of the code, new parameters need to be passed around. To make this easier, I grouped them into a structure, and I made internal static versions of the relevant functions that take this structure as a parameter. The new code does as you might expect, it looks for @llvm.assume calls that make use of the value we're trying to learn something about (often indirectly), attempts to pattern match that expression, and uses the result if successful. By making use of the AssumptionTracker, the process of finding @llvm.assume calls is not expensive. Part of the structure being passed around inside ValueTracking is a set of already-considered @llvm.assume calls. This is to prevent a query using, for example, the assume(a == b), to recurse on itself. The context and DT params are used to find applicable assumptions. An assumption needs to dominate the context instruction, or come after it deterministically. In this latter case we only handle the specific case where both the assumption and the context instruction are in the same block, and we need to exclude assumptions from being used to simplify their own ephemeral values (those which contribute only to the assumption) because otherwise the assumption would prove its feeding comparison trivial and would be removed. This commit adds the plumbing and the logic for a simple masked-bit propagation (just enough to write a regression test). Future commits add more patterns (and, correspondingly, more regression tests). llvm-svn: 217342
2014-09-08 02:57:58 +08:00
bool llvm::isKnownToBeAPowerOfTwo(const Value *V, const DataLayout &DL,
bool OrZero,
unsigned Depth, AssumptionCache *AC,
const Instruction *CxtI,
Make use of @llvm.assume in ValueTracking (computeKnownBits, etc.) This change, which allows @llvm.assume to be used from within computeKnownBits (and other associated functions in ValueTracking), adds some (optional) parameters to computeKnownBits and friends. These functions now (optionally) take a "context" instruction pointer, an AssumptionTracker pointer, and also a DomTree pointer, and most of the changes are just to pass this new information when it is easily available from InstSimplify, InstCombine, etc. As explained below, the significant conceptual change is that known properties of a value might depend on the control-flow location of the use (because we care that the @llvm.assume dominates the use because assumptions have control-flow dependencies). This means that, when we ask if bits are known in a value, we might get different answers for different uses. The significant changes are all in ValueTracking. Two main changes: First, as with the rest of the code, new parameters need to be passed around. To make this easier, I grouped them into a structure, and I made internal static versions of the relevant functions that take this structure as a parameter. The new code does as you might expect, it looks for @llvm.assume calls that make use of the value we're trying to learn something about (often indirectly), attempts to pattern match that expression, and uses the result if successful. By making use of the AssumptionTracker, the process of finding @llvm.assume calls is not expensive. Part of the structure being passed around inside ValueTracking is a set of already-considered @llvm.assume calls. This is to prevent a query using, for example, the assume(a == b), to recurse on itself. The context and DT params are used to find applicable assumptions. An assumption needs to dominate the context instruction, or come after it deterministically. In this latter case we only handle the specific case where both the assumption and the context instruction are in the same block, and we need to exclude assumptions from being used to simplify their own ephemeral values (those which contribute only to the assumption) because otherwise the assumption would prove its feeding comparison trivial and would be removed. This commit adds the plumbing and the logic for a simple masked-bit propagation (just enough to write a regression test). Future commits add more patterns (and, correspondingly, more regression tests). llvm-svn: 217342
2014-09-08 02:57:58 +08:00
const DominatorTree *DT) {
return ::isKnownToBeAPowerOfTwo(V, OrZero, Depth,
Query(DL, AC, safeCxtI(V, CxtI), DT));
Make use of @llvm.assume in ValueTracking (computeKnownBits, etc.) This change, which allows @llvm.assume to be used from within computeKnownBits (and other associated functions in ValueTracking), adds some (optional) parameters to computeKnownBits and friends. These functions now (optionally) take a "context" instruction pointer, an AssumptionTracker pointer, and also a DomTree pointer, and most of the changes are just to pass this new information when it is easily available from InstSimplify, InstCombine, etc. As explained below, the significant conceptual change is that known properties of a value might depend on the control-flow location of the use (because we care that the @llvm.assume dominates the use because assumptions have control-flow dependencies). This means that, when we ask if bits are known in a value, we might get different answers for different uses. The significant changes are all in ValueTracking. Two main changes: First, as with the rest of the code, new parameters need to be passed around. To make this easier, I grouped them into a structure, and I made internal static versions of the relevant functions that take this structure as a parameter. The new code does as you might expect, it looks for @llvm.assume calls that make use of the value we're trying to learn something about (often indirectly), attempts to pattern match that expression, and uses the result if successful. By making use of the AssumptionTracker, the process of finding @llvm.assume calls is not expensive. Part of the structure being passed around inside ValueTracking is a set of already-considered @llvm.assume calls. This is to prevent a query using, for example, the assume(a == b), to recurse on itself. The context and DT params are used to find applicable assumptions. An assumption needs to dominate the context instruction, or come after it deterministically. In this latter case we only handle the specific case where both the assumption and the context instruction are in the same block, and we need to exclude assumptions from being used to simplify their own ephemeral values (those which contribute only to the assumption) because otherwise the assumption would prove its feeding comparison trivial and would be removed. This commit adds the plumbing and the logic for a simple masked-bit propagation (just enough to write a regression test). Future commits add more patterns (and, correspondingly, more regression tests). llvm-svn: 217342
2014-09-08 02:57:58 +08:00
}
static bool isKnownNonZero(const Value *V, unsigned Depth, const Query &Q);
Make use of @llvm.assume in ValueTracking (computeKnownBits, etc.) This change, which allows @llvm.assume to be used from within computeKnownBits (and other associated functions in ValueTracking), adds some (optional) parameters to computeKnownBits and friends. These functions now (optionally) take a "context" instruction pointer, an AssumptionTracker pointer, and also a DomTree pointer, and most of the changes are just to pass this new information when it is easily available from InstSimplify, InstCombine, etc. As explained below, the significant conceptual change is that known properties of a value might depend on the control-flow location of the use (because we care that the @llvm.assume dominates the use because assumptions have control-flow dependencies). This means that, when we ask if bits are known in a value, we might get different answers for different uses. The significant changes are all in ValueTracking. Two main changes: First, as with the rest of the code, new parameters need to be passed around. To make this easier, I grouped them into a structure, and I made internal static versions of the relevant functions that take this structure as a parameter. The new code does as you might expect, it looks for @llvm.assume calls that make use of the value we're trying to learn something about (often indirectly), attempts to pattern match that expression, and uses the result if successful. By making use of the AssumptionTracker, the process of finding @llvm.assume calls is not expensive. Part of the structure being passed around inside ValueTracking is a set of already-considered @llvm.assume calls. This is to prevent a query using, for example, the assume(a == b), to recurse on itself. The context and DT params are used to find applicable assumptions. An assumption needs to dominate the context instruction, or come after it deterministically. In this latter case we only handle the specific case where both the assumption and the context instruction are in the same block, and we need to exclude assumptions from being used to simplify their own ephemeral values (those which contribute only to the assumption) because otherwise the assumption would prove its feeding comparison trivial and would be removed. This commit adds the plumbing and the logic for a simple masked-bit propagation (just enough to write a regression test). Future commits add more patterns (and, correspondingly, more regression tests). llvm-svn: 217342
2014-09-08 02:57:58 +08:00
bool llvm::isKnownNonZero(const Value *V, const DataLayout &DL, unsigned Depth,
AssumptionCache *AC, const Instruction *CxtI,
const DominatorTree *DT) {
return ::isKnownNonZero(V, Depth, Query(DL, AC, safeCxtI(V, CxtI), DT));
Make use of @llvm.assume in ValueTracking (computeKnownBits, etc.) This change, which allows @llvm.assume to be used from within computeKnownBits (and other associated functions in ValueTracking), adds some (optional) parameters to computeKnownBits and friends. These functions now (optionally) take a "context" instruction pointer, an AssumptionTracker pointer, and also a DomTree pointer, and most of the changes are just to pass this new information when it is easily available from InstSimplify, InstCombine, etc. As explained below, the significant conceptual change is that known properties of a value might depend on the control-flow location of the use (because we care that the @llvm.assume dominates the use because assumptions have control-flow dependencies). This means that, when we ask if bits are known in a value, we might get different answers for different uses. The significant changes are all in ValueTracking. Two main changes: First, as with the rest of the code, new parameters need to be passed around. To make this easier, I grouped them into a structure, and I made internal static versions of the relevant functions that take this structure as a parameter. The new code does as you might expect, it looks for @llvm.assume calls that make use of the value we're trying to learn something about (often indirectly), attempts to pattern match that expression, and uses the result if successful. By making use of the AssumptionTracker, the process of finding @llvm.assume calls is not expensive. Part of the structure being passed around inside ValueTracking is a set of already-considered @llvm.assume calls. This is to prevent a query using, for example, the assume(a == b), to recurse on itself. The context and DT params are used to find applicable assumptions. An assumption needs to dominate the context instruction, or come after it deterministically. In this latter case we only handle the specific case where both the assumption and the context instruction are in the same block, and we need to exclude assumptions from being used to simplify their own ephemeral values (those which contribute only to the assumption) because otherwise the assumption would prove its feeding comparison trivial and would be removed. This commit adds the plumbing and the logic for a simple masked-bit propagation (just enough to write a regression test). Future commits add more patterns (and, correspondingly, more regression tests). llvm-svn: 217342
2014-09-08 02:57:58 +08:00
}
bool llvm::isKnownNonNegative(const Value *V, const DataLayout &DL,
unsigned Depth,
AssumptionCache *AC, const Instruction *CxtI,
const DominatorTree *DT) {
bool NonNegative, Negative;
ComputeSignBit(V, NonNegative, Negative, DL, Depth, AC, CxtI, DT);
return NonNegative;
}
bool llvm::isKnownPositive(const Value *V, const DataLayout &DL, unsigned Depth,
AssumptionCache *AC, const Instruction *CxtI,
const DominatorTree *DT) {
if (auto *CI = dyn_cast<ConstantInt>(V))
return CI->getValue().isStrictlyPositive();
// TODO: We'd doing two recursive queries here. We should factor this such
// that only a single query is needed.
return isKnownNonNegative(V, DL, Depth, AC, CxtI, DT) &&
isKnownNonZero(V, DL, Depth, AC, CxtI, DT);
}
bool llvm::isKnownNegative(const Value *V, const DataLayout &DL, unsigned Depth,
AssumptionCache *AC, const Instruction *CxtI,
const DominatorTree *DT) {
bool NonNegative, Negative;
ComputeSignBit(V, NonNegative, Negative, DL, Depth, AC, CxtI, DT);
return Negative;
}
static bool isKnownNonEqual(const Value *V1, const Value *V2, const Query &Q);
bool llvm::isKnownNonEqual(const Value *V1, const Value *V2,
const DataLayout &DL,
AssumptionCache *AC, const Instruction *CxtI,
const DominatorTree *DT) {
return ::isKnownNonEqual(V1, V2, Query(DL, AC,
safeCxtI(V1, safeCxtI(V2, CxtI)),
DT));
}
static bool MaskedValueIsZero(const Value *V, const APInt &Mask, unsigned Depth,
const Query &Q);
Make use of @llvm.assume in ValueTracking (computeKnownBits, etc.) This change, which allows @llvm.assume to be used from within computeKnownBits (and other associated functions in ValueTracking), adds some (optional) parameters to computeKnownBits and friends. These functions now (optionally) take a "context" instruction pointer, an AssumptionTracker pointer, and also a DomTree pointer, and most of the changes are just to pass this new information when it is easily available from InstSimplify, InstCombine, etc. As explained below, the significant conceptual change is that known properties of a value might depend on the control-flow location of the use (because we care that the @llvm.assume dominates the use because assumptions have control-flow dependencies). This means that, when we ask if bits are known in a value, we might get different answers for different uses. The significant changes are all in ValueTracking. Two main changes: First, as with the rest of the code, new parameters need to be passed around. To make this easier, I grouped them into a structure, and I made internal static versions of the relevant functions that take this structure as a parameter. The new code does as you might expect, it looks for @llvm.assume calls that make use of the value we're trying to learn something about (often indirectly), attempts to pattern match that expression, and uses the result if successful. By making use of the AssumptionTracker, the process of finding @llvm.assume calls is not expensive. Part of the structure being passed around inside ValueTracking is a set of already-considered @llvm.assume calls. This is to prevent a query using, for example, the assume(a == b), to recurse on itself. The context and DT params are used to find applicable assumptions. An assumption needs to dominate the context instruction, or come after it deterministically. In this latter case we only handle the specific case where both the assumption and the context instruction are in the same block, and we need to exclude assumptions from being used to simplify their own ephemeral values (those which contribute only to the assumption) because otherwise the assumption would prove its feeding comparison trivial and would be removed. This commit adds the plumbing and the logic for a simple masked-bit propagation (just enough to write a regression test). Future commits add more patterns (and, correspondingly, more regression tests). llvm-svn: 217342
2014-09-08 02:57:58 +08:00
bool llvm::MaskedValueIsZero(const Value *V, const APInt &Mask,
const DataLayout &DL,
unsigned Depth, AssumptionCache *AC,
const Instruction *CxtI, const DominatorTree *DT) {
return ::MaskedValueIsZero(V, Mask, Depth,
Query(DL, AC, safeCxtI(V, CxtI), DT));
Make use of @llvm.assume in ValueTracking (computeKnownBits, etc.) This change, which allows @llvm.assume to be used from within computeKnownBits (and other associated functions in ValueTracking), adds some (optional) parameters to computeKnownBits and friends. These functions now (optionally) take a "context" instruction pointer, an AssumptionTracker pointer, and also a DomTree pointer, and most of the changes are just to pass this new information when it is easily available from InstSimplify, InstCombine, etc. As explained below, the significant conceptual change is that known properties of a value might depend on the control-flow location of the use (because we care that the @llvm.assume dominates the use because assumptions have control-flow dependencies). This means that, when we ask if bits are known in a value, we might get different answers for different uses. The significant changes are all in ValueTracking. Two main changes: First, as with the rest of the code, new parameters need to be passed around. To make this easier, I grouped them into a structure, and I made internal static versions of the relevant functions that take this structure as a parameter. The new code does as you might expect, it looks for @llvm.assume calls that make use of the value we're trying to learn something about (often indirectly), attempts to pattern match that expression, and uses the result if successful. By making use of the AssumptionTracker, the process of finding @llvm.assume calls is not expensive. Part of the structure being passed around inside ValueTracking is a set of already-considered @llvm.assume calls. This is to prevent a query using, for example, the assume(a == b), to recurse on itself. The context and DT params are used to find applicable assumptions. An assumption needs to dominate the context instruction, or come after it deterministically. In this latter case we only handle the specific case where both the assumption and the context instruction are in the same block, and we need to exclude assumptions from being used to simplify their own ephemeral values (those which contribute only to the assumption) because otherwise the assumption would prove its feeding comparison trivial and would be removed. This commit adds the plumbing and the logic for a simple masked-bit propagation (just enough to write a regression test). Future commits add more patterns (and, correspondingly, more regression tests). llvm-svn: 217342
2014-09-08 02:57:58 +08:00
}
static unsigned ComputeNumSignBits(const Value *V, unsigned Depth,
const Query &Q);
Make use of @llvm.assume in ValueTracking (computeKnownBits, etc.) This change, which allows @llvm.assume to be used from within computeKnownBits (and other associated functions in ValueTracking), adds some (optional) parameters to computeKnownBits and friends. These functions now (optionally) take a "context" instruction pointer, an AssumptionTracker pointer, and also a DomTree pointer, and most of the changes are just to pass this new information when it is easily available from InstSimplify, InstCombine, etc. As explained below, the significant conceptual change is that known properties of a value might depend on the control-flow location of the use (because we care that the @llvm.assume dominates the use because assumptions have control-flow dependencies). This means that, when we ask if bits are known in a value, we might get different answers for different uses. The significant changes are all in ValueTracking. Two main changes: First, as with the rest of the code, new parameters need to be passed around. To make this easier, I grouped them into a structure, and I made internal static versions of the relevant functions that take this structure as a parameter. The new code does as you might expect, it looks for @llvm.assume calls that make use of the value we're trying to learn something about (often indirectly), attempts to pattern match that expression, and uses the result if successful. By making use of the AssumptionTracker, the process of finding @llvm.assume calls is not expensive. Part of the structure being passed around inside ValueTracking is a set of already-considered @llvm.assume calls. This is to prevent a query using, for example, the assume(a == b), to recurse on itself. The context and DT params are used to find applicable assumptions. An assumption needs to dominate the context instruction, or come after it deterministically. In this latter case we only handle the specific case where both the assumption and the context instruction are in the same block, and we need to exclude assumptions from being used to simplify their own ephemeral values (those which contribute only to the assumption) because otherwise the assumption would prove its feeding comparison trivial and would be removed. This commit adds the plumbing and the logic for a simple masked-bit propagation (just enough to write a regression test). Future commits add more patterns (and, correspondingly, more regression tests). llvm-svn: 217342
2014-09-08 02:57:58 +08:00
unsigned llvm::ComputeNumSignBits(const Value *V, const DataLayout &DL,
unsigned Depth, AssumptionCache *AC,
const Instruction *CxtI,
Make use of @llvm.assume in ValueTracking (computeKnownBits, etc.) This change, which allows @llvm.assume to be used from within computeKnownBits (and other associated functions in ValueTracking), adds some (optional) parameters to computeKnownBits and friends. These functions now (optionally) take a "context" instruction pointer, an AssumptionTracker pointer, and also a DomTree pointer, and most of the changes are just to pass this new information when it is easily available from InstSimplify, InstCombine, etc. As explained below, the significant conceptual change is that known properties of a value might depend on the control-flow location of the use (because we care that the @llvm.assume dominates the use because assumptions have control-flow dependencies). This means that, when we ask if bits are known in a value, we might get different answers for different uses. The significant changes are all in ValueTracking. Two main changes: First, as with the rest of the code, new parameters need to be passed around. To make this easier, I grouped them into a structure, and I made internal static versions of the relevant functions that take this structure as a parameter. The new code does as you might expect, it looks for @llvm.assume calls that make use of the value we're trying to learn something about (often indirectly), attempts to pattern match that expression, and uses the result if successful. By making use of the AssumptionTracker, the process of finding @llvm.assume calls is not expensive. Part of the structure being passed around inside ValueTracking is a set of already-considered @llvm.assume calls. This is to prevent a query using, for example, the assume(a == b), to recurse on itself. The context and DT params are used to find applicable assumptions. An assumption needs to dominate the context instruction, or come after it deterministically. In this latter case we only handle the specific case where both the assumption and the context instruction are in the same block, and we need to exclude assumptions from being used to simplify their own ephemeral values (those which contribute only to the assumption) because otherwise the assumption would prove its feeding comparison trivial and would be removed. This commit adds the plumbing and the logic for a simple masked-bit propagation (just enough to write a regression test). Future commits add more patterns (and, correspondingly, more regression tests). llvm-svn: 217342
2014-09-08 02:57:58 +08:00
const DominatorTree *DT) {
return ::ComputeNumSignBits(V, Depth, Query(DL, AC, safeCxtI(V, CxtI), DT));
Make use of @llvm.assume in ValueTracking (computeKnownBits, etc.) This change, which allows @llvm.assume to be used from within computeKnownBits (and other associated functions in ValueTracking), adds some (optional) parameters to computeKnownBits and friends. These functions now (optionally) take a "context" instruction pointer, an AssumptionTracker pointer, and also a DomTree pointer, and most of the changes are just to pass this new information when it is easily available from InstSimplify, InstCombine, etc. As explained below, the significant conceptual change is that known properties of a value might depend on the control-flow location of the use (because we care that the @llvm.assume dominates the use because assumptions have control-flow dependencies). This means that, when we ask if bits are known in a value, we might get different answers for different uses. The significant changes are all in ValueTracking. Two main changes: First, as with the rest of the code, new parameters need to be passed around. To make this easier, I grouped them into a structure, and I made internal static versions of the relevant functions that take this structure as a parameter. The new code does as you might expect, it looks for @llvm.assume calls that make use of the value we're trying to learn something about (often indirectly), attempts to pattern match that expression, and uses the result if successful. By making use of the AssumptionTracker, the process of finding @llvm.assume calls is not expensive. Part of the structure being passed around inside ValueTracking is a set of already-considered @llvm.assume calls. This is to prevent a query using, for example, the assume(a == b), to recurse on itself. The context and DT params are used to find applicable assumptions. An assumption needs to dominate the context instruction, or come after it deterministically. In this latter case we only handle the specific case where both the assumption and the context instruction are in the same block, and we need to exclude assumptions from being used to simplify their own ephemeral values (those which contribute only to the assumption) because otherwise the assumption would prove its feeding comparison trivial and would be removed. This commit adds the plumbing and the logic for a simple masked-bit propagation (just enough to write a regression test). Future commits add more patterns (and, correspondingly, more regression tests). llvm-svn: 217342
2014-09-08 02:57:58 +08:00
}
static void computeKnownBitsAddSub(bool Add, const Value *Op0, const Value *Op1,
bool NSW,
APInt &KnownZero, APInt &KnownOne,
APInt &KnownZero2, APInt &KnownOne2,
unsigned Depth, const Query &Q) {
unsigned BitWidth = KnownZero.getBitWidth();
// If an initial sequence of bits in the result is not needed, the
// corresponding bits in the operands are not needed.
APInt LHSKnownZero(BitWidth, 0), LHSKnownOne(BitWidth, 0);
computeKnownBits(Op0, LHSKnownZero, LHSKnownOne, Depth + 1, Q);
computeKnownBits(Op1, KnownZero2, KnownOne2, Depth + 1, Q);
// Carry in a 1 for a subtract, rather than a 0.
APInt CarryIn(BitWidth, 0);
if (!Add) {
// Sum = LHS + ~RHS + 1
std::swap(KnownZero2, KnownOne2);
CarryIn.setBit(0);
}
APInt PossibleSumZero = ~LHSKnownZero + ~KnownZero2 + CarryIn;
APInt PossibleSumOne = LHSKnownOne + KnownOne2 + CarryIn;
// Compute known bits of the carry.
APInt CarryKnownZero = ~(PossibleSumZero ^ LHSKnownZero ^ KnownZero2);
APInt CarryKnownOne = PossibleSumOne ^ LHSKnownOne ^ KnownOne2;
// Compute set of known bits (where all three relevant bits are known).
APInt LHSKnown = LHSKnownZero | LHSKnownOne;
APInt RHSKnown = KnownZero2 | KnownOne2;
APInt CarryKnown = CarryKnownZero | CarryKnownOne;
APInt Known = LHSKnown & RHSKnown & CarryKnown;
assert((PossibleSumZero & Known) == (PossibleSumOne & Known) &&
"known bits of sum differ");
// Compute known bits of the result.
KnownZero = ~PossibleSumOne & Known;
KnownOne = PossibleSumOne & Known;
// Are we still trying to solve for the sign bit?
if (!Known.isNegative()) {
if (NSW) {
// Adding two non-negative numbers, or subtracting a negative number from
// a non-negative one, can't wrap into negative.
if (LHSKnownZero.isNegative() && KnownZero2.isNegative())
KnownZero.setSignBit();
// Adding two negative numbers, or subtracting a non-negative number from
// a negative one, can't wrap into non-negative.
else if (LHSKnownOne.isNegative() && KnownOne2.isNegative())
KnownOne.setSignBit();
}
}
}
static void computeKnownBitsMul(const Value *Op0, const Value *Op1, bool NSW,
APInt &KnownZero, APInt &KnownOne,
APInt &KnownZero2, APInt &KnownOne2,
unsigned Depth, const Query &Q) {
unsigned BitWidth = KnownZero.getBitWidth();
computeKnownBits(Op1, KnownZero, KnownOne, Depth + 1, Q);
computeKnownBits(Op0, KnownZero2, KnownOne2, Depth + 1, Q);
bool isKnownNegative = false;
bool isKnownNonNegative = false;
// If the multiplication is known not to overflow, compute the sign bit.
if (NSW) {
if (Op0 == Op1) {
// The product of a number with itself is non-negative.
isKnownNonNegative = true;
} else {
bool isKnownNonNegativeOp1 = KnownZero.isNegative();
bool isKnownNonNegativeOp0 = KnownZero2.isNegative();
bool isKnownNegativeOp1 = KnownOne.isNegative();
bool isKnownNegativeOp0 = KnownOne2.isNegative();
// The product of two numbers with the same sign is non-negative.
isKnownNonNegative = (isKnownNegativeOp1 && isKnownNegativeOp0) ||
(isKnownNonNegativeOp1 && isKnownNonNegativeOp0);
// The product of a negative number and a non-negative number is either
// negative or zero.
if (!isKnownNonNegative)
isKnownNegative = (isKnownNegativeOp1 && isKnownNonNegativeOp0 &&
isKnownNonZero(Op0, Depth, Q)) ||
(isKnownNegativeOp0 && isKnownNonNegativeOp1 &&
isKnownNonZero(Op1, Depth, Q));
}
}
// If low bits are zero in either operand, output low known-0 bits.
2015-09-18 04:51:50 +08:00
// Also compute a conservative estimate for high known-0 bits.
// More trickiness is possible, but this is sufficient for the
// interesting case of alignment computation.
KnownOne.clearAllBits();
unsigned TrailZ = KnownZero.countTrailingOnes() +
KnownZero2.countTrailingOnes();
unsigned LeadZ = std::max(KnownZero.countLeadingOnes() +
KnownZero2.countLeadingOnes(),
BitWidth) - BitWidth;
TrailZ = std::min(TrailZ, BitWidth);
LeadZ = std::min(LeadZ, BitWidth);
KnownZero.clearAllBits();
KnownZero.setLowBits(TrailZ);
KnownZero.setHighBits(LeadZ);
// Only make use of no-wrap flags if we failed to compute the sign bit
// directly. This matters if the multiplication always overflows, in
// which case we prefer to follow the result of the direct computation,
// though as the program is invoking undefined behaviour we can choose
// whatever we like here.
if (isKnownNonNegative && !KnownOne.isNegative())
KnownZero.setSignBit();
else if (isKnownNegative && !KnownZero.isNegative())
KnownOne.setSignBit();
}
void llvm::computeKnownBitsFromRangeMetadata(const MDNode &Ranges,
APInt &KnownZero,
APInt &KnownOne) {
unsigned BitWidth = KnownZero.getBitWidth();
unsigned NumRanges = Ranges.getNumOperands() / 2;
assert(NumRanges >= 1);
KnownZero.setAllBits();
KnownOne.setAllBits();
for (unsigned i = 0; i < NumRanges; ++i) {
IR: Split Metadata from Value Split `Metadata` away from the `Value` class hierarchy, as part of PR21532. Assembly and bitcode changes are in the wings, but this is the bulk of the change for the IR C++ API. I have a follow-up patch prepared for `clang`. If this breaks other sub-projects, I apologize in advance :(. Help me compile it on Darwin I'll try to fix it. FWIW, the errors should be easy to fix, so it may be simpler to just fix it yourself. This breaks the build for all metadata-related code that's out-of-tree. Rest assured the transition is mechanical and the compiler should catch almost all of the problems. Here's a quick guide for updating your code: - `Metadata` is the root of a class hierarchy with three main classes: `MDNode`, `MDString`, and `ValueAsMetadata`. It is distinct from the `Value` class hierarchy. It is typeless -- i.e., instances do *not* have a `Type`. - `MDNode`'s operands are all `Metadata *` (instead of `Value *`). - `TrackingVH<MDNode>` and `WeakVH` referring to metadata can be replaced with `TrackingMDNodeRef` and `TrackingMDRef`, respectively. If you're referring solely to resolved `MDNode`s -- post graph construction -- just use `MDNode*`. - `MDNode` (and the rest of `Metadata`) have only limited support for `replaceAllUsesWith()`. As long as an `MDNode` is pointing at a forward declaration -- the result of `MDNode::getTemporary()` -- it maintains a side map of its uses and can RAUW itself. Once the forward declarations are fully resolved RAUW support is dropped on the ground. This means that uniquing collisions on changing operands cause nodes to become "distinct". (This already happened fairly commonly, whenever an operand went to null.) If you're constructing complex (non self-reference) `MDNode` cycles, you need to call `MDNode::resolveCycles()` on each node (or on a top-level node that somehow references all of the nodes). Also, don't do that. Metadata cycles (and the RAUW machinery needed to construct them) are expensive. - An `MDNode` can only refer to a `Constant` through a bridge called `ConstantAsMetadata` (one of the subclasses of `ValueAsMetadata`). As a side effect, accessing an operand of an `MDNode` that is known to be, e.g., `ConstantInt`, takes three steps: first, cast from `Metadata` to `ConstantAsMetadata`; second, extract the `Constant`; third, cast down to `ConstantInt`. The eventual goal is to introduce `MDInt`/`MDFloat`/etc. and have metadata schema owners transition away from using `Constant`s when the type isn't important (and they don't care about referring to `GlobalValue`s). In the meantime, I've added transitional API to the `mdconst` namespace that matches semantics with the old code, in order to avoid adding the error-prone three-step equivalent to every call site. If your old code was: MDNode *N = foo(); bar(isa <ConstantInt>(N->getOperand(0))); baz(cast <ConstantInt>(N->getOperand(1))); bak(cast_or_null <ConstantInt>(N->getOperand(2))); bat(dyn_cast <ConstantInt>(N->getOperand(3))); bay(dyn_cast_or_null<ConstantInt>(N->getOperand(4))); you can trivially match its semantics with: MDNode *N = foo(); bar(mdconst::hasa <ConstantInt>(N->getOperand(0))); baz(mdconst::extract <ConstantInt>(N->getOperand(1))); bak(mdconst::extract_or_null <ConstantInt>(N->getOperand(2))); bat(mdconst::dyn_extract <ConstantInt>(N->getOperand(3))); bay(mdconst::dyn_extract_or_null<ConstantInt>(N->getOperand(4))); and when you transition your metadata schema to `MDInt`: MDNode *N = foo(); bar(isa <MDInt>(N->getOperand(0))); baz(cast <MDInt>(N->getOperand(1))); bak(cast_or_null <MDInt>(N->getOperand(2))); bat(dyn_cast <MDInt>(N->getOperand(3))); bay(dyn_cast_or_null<MDInt>(N->getOperand(4))); - A `CallInst` -- specifically, intrinsic instructions -- can refer to metadata through a bridge called `MetadataAsValue`. This is a subclass of `Value` where `getType()->isMetadataTy()`. `MetadataAsValue` is the *only* class that can legally refer to a `LocalAsMetadata`, which is a bridged form of non-`Constant` values like `Argument` and `Instruction`. It can also refer to any other `Metadata` subclass. (I'll break all your testcases in a follow-up commit, when I propagate this change to assembly.) llvm-svn: 223802
2014-12-10 02:38:53 +08:00
ConstantInt *Lower =
mdconst::extract<ConstantInt>(Ranges.getOperand(2 * i + 0));
ConstantInt *Upper =
mdconst::extract<ConstantInt>(Ranges.getOperand(2 * i + 1));
ConstantRange Range(Lower->getValue(), Upper->getValue());
// The first CommonPrefixBits of all values in Range are equal.
unsigned CommonPrefixBits =
(Range.getUnsignedMax() ^ Range.getUnsignedMin()).countLeadingZeros();
APInt Mask = APInt::getHighBitsSet(BitWidth, CommonPrefixBits);
KnownOne &= Range.getUnsignedMax() & Mask;
KnownZero &= ~Range.getUnsignedMax() & Mask;
}
}
static bool isEphemeralValueOf(const Instruction *I, const Value *E) {
Make use of @llvm.assume in ValueTracking (computeKnownBits, etc.) This change, which allows @llvm.assume to be used from within computeKnownBits (and other associated functions in ValueTracking), adds some (optional) parameters to computeKnownBits and friends. These functions now (optionally) take a "context" instruction pointer, an AssumptionTracker pointer, and also a DomTree pointer, and most of the changes are just to pass this new information when it is easily available from InstSimplify, InstCombine, etc. As explained below, the significant conceptual change is that known properties of a value might depend on the control-flow location of the use (because we care that the @llvm.assume dominates the use because assumptions have control-flow dependencies). This means that, when we ask if bits are known in a value, we might get different answers for different uses. The significant changes are all in ValueTracking. Two main changes: First, as with the rest of the code, new parameters need to be passed around. To make this easier, I grouped them into a structure, and I made internal static versions of the relevant functions that take this structure as a parameter. The new code does as you might expect, it looks for @llvm.assume calls that make use of the value we're trying to learn something about (often indirectly), attempts to pattern match that expression, and uses the result if successful. By making use of the AssumptionTracker, the process of finding @llvm.assume calls is not expensive. Part of the structure being passed around inside ValueTracking is a set of already-considered @llvm.assume calls. This is to prevent a query using, for example, the assume(a == b), to recurse on itself. The context and DT params are used to find applicable assumptions. An assumption needs to dominate the context instruction, or come after it deterministically. In this latter case we only handle the specific case where both the assumption and the context instruction are in the same block, and we need to exclude assumptions from being used to simplify their own ephemeral values (those which contribute only to the assumption) because otherwise the assumption would prove its feeding comparison trivial and would be removed. This commit adds the plumbing and the logic for a simple masked-bit propagation (just enough to write a regression test). Future commits add more patterns (and, correspondingly, more regression tests). llvm-svn: 217342
2014-09-08 02:57:58 +08:00
SmallVector<const Value *, 16> WorkSet(1, I);
SmallPtrSet<const Value *, 32> Visited;
SmallPtrSet<const Value *, 16> EphValues;
Handle non-constant shifts in computeKnownBits, and use computeKnownBits for constant folding in InstCombine/Simplify First, the motivation: LLVM currently does not realize that: ((2072 >> (L == 0)) >> 7) & 1 == 0 where L is some arbitrary value. Whether you right-shift 2072 by 7 or by 8, the lowest-order bit is always zero. There are obviously several ways to go about fixing this, but the generic solution pursued in this patch is to teach computeKnownBits something about shifts by a non-constant amount. Previously, we would give up completely on these. Instead, in cases where we know something about the low-order bits of the shift-amount operand, we can combine (and together) the associated restrictions for all shift amounts consistent with that knowledge. As a further generalization, I refactored all of the logic for all three kinds of shifts to have this capability. This works well in the above case, for example, because the dynamic shift amount can only be 0 or 1, and thus we can say a lot about the known bits of the result. This brings us to the second part of this change: Even when we know all of the bits of a value via computeKnownBits, nothing used to constant-fold the result. This introduces the necessary code into InstCombine and InstSimplify. I've added it into both because: 1. InstCombine won't automatically pick up the associated logic in InstSimplify (InstCombine uses InstSimplify, but not via the API that passes in the original instruction). 2. Putting the logic in InstCombine allows the resulting simplifications to become part of the iterative worklist 3. Putting the logic in InstSimplify allows the resulting simplifications to be used by everywhere else that calls SimplifyInstruction (inlining, unrolling, and many others). And this requires a small change to our definition of an ephemeral value so that we don't break the rest case from r246696 (where the icmp feeding the @llvm.assume, is also feeding a br). Under the old definition, the icmp would not be considered ephemeral (because it is used by the br), but this causes the assume to remove itself (in addition to simplifying the branch structure), and it seems more-useful to prevent that from happening. llvm-svn: 251146
2015-10-24 04:37:08 +08:00
// The instruction defining an assumption's condition itself is always
// considered ephemeral to that assumption (even if it has other
// non-ephemeral users). See r246696's test case for an example.
if (is_contained(I->operands(), E))
Handle non-constant shifts in computeKnownBits, and use computeKnownBits for constant folding in InstCombine/Simplify First, the motivation: LLVM currently does not realize that: ((2072 >> (L == 0)) >> 7) & 1 == 0 where L is some arbitrary value. Whether you right-shift 2072 by 7 or by 8, the lowest-order bit is always zero. There are obviously several ways to go about fixing this, but the generic solution pursued in this patch is to teach computeKnownBits something about shifts by a non-constant amount. Previously, we would give up completely on these. Instead, in cases where we know something about the low-order bits of the shift-amount operand, we can combine (and together) the associated restrictions for all shift amounts consistent with that knowledge. As a further generalization, I refactored all of the logic for all three kinds of shifts to have this capability. This works well in the above case, for example, because the dynamic shift amount can only be 0 or 1, and thus we can say a lot about the known bits of the result. This brings us to the second part of this change: Even when we know all of the bits of a value via computeKnownBits, nothing used to constant-fold the result. This introduces the necessary code into InstCombine and InstSimplify. I've added it into both because: 1. InstCombine won't automatically pick up the associated logic in InstSimplify (InstCombine uses InstSimplify, but not via the API that passes in the original instruction). 2. Putting the logic in InstCombine allows the resulting simplifications to become part of the iterative worklist 3. Putting the logic in InstSimplify allows the resulting simplifications to be used by everywhere else that calls SimplifyInstruction (inlining, unrolling, and many others). And this requires a small change to our definition of an ephemeral value so that we don't break the rest case from r246696 (where the icmp feeding the @llvm.assume, is also feeding a br). Under the old definition, the icmp would not be considered ephemeral (because it is used by the br), but this causes the assume to remove itself (in addition to simplifying the branch structure), and it seems more-useful to prevent that from happening. llvm-svn: 251146
2015-10-24 04:37:08 +08:00
return true;
Make use of @llvm.assume in ValueTracking (computeKnownBits, etc.) This change, which allows @llvm.assume to be used from within computeKnownBits (and other associated functions in ValueTracking), adds some (optional) parameters to computeKnownBits and friends. These functions now (optionally) take a "context" instruction pointer, an AssumptionTracker pointer, and also a DomTree pointer, and most of the changes are just to pass this new information when it is easily available from InstSimplify, InstCombine, etc. As explained below, the significant conceptual change is that known properties of a value might depend on the control-flow location of the use (because we care that the @llvm.assume dominates the use because assumptions have control-flow dependencies). This means that, when we ask if bits are known in a value, we might get different answers for different uses. The significant changes are all in ValueTracking. Two main changes: First, as with the rest of the code, new parameters need to be passed around. To make this easier, I grouped them into a structure, and I made internal static versions of the relevant functions that take this structure as a parameter. The new code does as you might expect, it looks for @llvm.assume calls that make use of the value we're trying to learn something about (often indirectly), attempts to pattern match that expression, and uses the result if successful. By making use of the AssumptionTracker, the process of finding @llvm.assume calls is not expensive. Part of the structure being passed around inside ValueTracking is a set of already-considered @llvm.assume calls. This is to prevent a query using, for example, the assume(a == b), to recurse on itself. The context and DT params are used to find applicable assumptions. An assumption needs to dominate the context instruction, or come after it deterministically. In this latter case we only handle the specific case where both the assumption and the context instruction are in the same block, and we need to exclude assumptions from being used to simplify their own ephemeral values (those which contribute only to the assumption) because otherwise the assumption would prove its feeding comparison trivial and would be removed. This commit adds the plumbing and the logic for a simple masked-bit propagation (just enough to write a regression test). Future commits add more patterns (and, correspondingly, more regression tests). llvm-svn: 217342
2014-09-08 02:57:58 +08:00
while (!WorkSet.empty()) {
const Value *V = WorkSet.pop_back_val();
if (!Visited.insert(V).second)
Make use of @llvm.assume in ValueTracking (computeKnownBits, etc.) This change, which allows @llvm.assume to be used from within computeKnownBits (and other associated functions in ValueTracking), adds some (optional) parameters to computeKnownBits and friends. These functions now (optionally) take a "context" instruction pointer, an AssumptionTracker pointer, and also a DomTree pointer, and most of the changes are just to pass this new information when it is easily available from InstSimplify, InstCombine, etc. As explained below, the significant conceptual change is that known properties of a value might depend on the control-flow location of the use (because we care that the @llvm.assume dominates the use because assumptions have control-flow dependencies). This means that, when we ask if bits are known in a value, we might get different answers for different uses. The significant changes are all in ValueTracking. Two main changes: First, as with the rest of the code, new parameters need to be passed around. To make this easier, I grouped them into a structure, and I made internal static versions of the relevant functions that take this structure as a parameter. The new code does as you might expect, it looks for @llvm.assume calls that make use of the value we're trying to learn something about (often indirectly), attempts to pattern match that expression, and uses the result if successful. By making use of the AssumptionTracker, the process of finding @llvm.assume calls is not expensive. Part of the structure being passed around inside ValueTracking is a set of already-considered @llvm.assume calls. This is to prevent a query using, for example, the assume(a == b), to recurse on itself. The context and DT params are used to find applicable assumptions. An assumption needs to dominate the context instruction, or come after it deterministically. In this latter case we only handle the specific case where both the assumption and the context instruction are in the same block, and we need to exclude assumptions from being used to simplify their own ephemeral values (those which contribute only to the assumption) because otherwise the assumption would prove its feeding comparison trivial and would be removed. This commit adds the plumbing and the logic for a simple masked-bit propagation (just enough to write a regression test). Future commits add more patterns (and, correspondingly, more regression tests). llvm-svn: 217342
2014-09-08 02:57:58 +08:00
continue;
// If all uses of this value are ephemeral, then so is this value.
if (all_of(V->users(), [&](const User *U) { return EphValues.count(U); })) {
Make use of @llvm.assume in ValueTracking (computeKnownBits, etc.) This change, which allows @llvm.assume to be used from within computeKnownBits (and other associated functions in ValueTracking), adds some (optional) parameters to computeKnownBits and friends. These functions now (optionally) take a "context" instruction pointer, an AssumptionTracker pointer, and also a DomTree pointer, and most of the changes are just to pass this new information when it is easily available from InstSimplify, InstCombine, etc. As explained below, the significant conceptual change is that known properties of a value might depend on the control-flow location of the use (because we care that the @llvm.assume dominates the use because assumptions have control-flow dependencies). This means that, when we ask if bits are known in a value, we might get different answers for different uses. The significant changes are all in ValueTracking. Two main changes: First, as with the rest of the code, new parameters need to be passed around. To make this easier, I grouped them into a structure, and I made internal static versions of the relevant functions that take this structure as a parameter. The new code does as you might expect, it looks for @llvm.assume calls that make use of the value we're trying to learn something about (often indirectly), attempts to pattern match that expression, and uses the result if successful. By making use of the AssumptionTracker, the process of finding @llvm.assume calls is not expensive. Part of the structure being passed around inside ValueTracking is a set of already-considered @llvm.assume calls. This is to prevent a query using, for example, the assume(a == b), to recurse on itself. The context and DT params are used to find applicable assumptions. An assumption needs to dominate the context instruction, or come after it deterministically. In this latter case we only handle the specific case where both the assumption and the context instruction are in the same block, and we need to exclude assumptions from being used to simplify their own ephemeral values (those which contribute only to the assumption) because otherwise the assumption would prove its feeding comparison trivial and would be removed. This commit adds the plumbing and the logic for a simple masked-bit propagation (just enough to write a regression test). Future commits add more patterns (and, correspondingly, more regression tests). llvm-svn: 217342
2014-09-08 02:57:58 +08:00
if (V == E)
return true;
EphValues.insert(V);
if (const User *U = dyn_cast<User>(V))
for (User::const_op_iterator J = U->op_begin(), JE = U->op_end();
J != JE; ++J) {
if (isSafeToSpeculativelyExecute(*J))
WorkSet.push_back(*J);
}
}
}
return false;
}
// Is this an intrinsic that cannot be speculated but also cannot trap?
static bool isAssumeLikeIntrinsic(const Instruction *I) {
if (const CallInst *CI = dyn_cast<CallInst>(I))
if (Function *F = CI->getCalledFunction())
switch (F->getIntrinsicID()) {
default: break;
// FIXME: This list is repeated from NoTTI::getIntrinsicCost.
case Intrinsic::assume:
case Intrinsic::dbg_declare:
case Intrinsic::dbg_value:
case Intrinsic::invariant_start:
case Intrinsic::invariant_end:
case Intrinsic::lifetime_start:
case Intrinsic::lifetime_end:
case Intrinsic::objectsize:
case Intrinsic::ptr_annotation:
case Intrinsic::var_annotation:
return true;
}
return false;
}
bool llvm::isValidAssumeForContext(const Instruction *Inv,
const Instruction *CxtI,
const DominatorTree *DT) {
Make use of @llvm.assume in ValueTracking (computeKnownBits, etc.) This change, which allows @llvm.assume to be used from within computeKnownBits (and other associated functions in ValueTracking), adds some (optional) parameters to computeKnownBits and friends. These functions now (optionally) take a "context" instruction pointer, an AssumptionTracker pointer, and also a DomTree pointer, and most of the changes are just to pass this new information when it is easily available from InstSimplify, InstCombine, etc. As explained below, the significant conceptual change is that known properties of a value might depend on the control-flow location of the use (because we care that the @llvm.assume dominates the use because assumptions have control-flow dependencies). This means that, when we ask if bits are known in a value, we might get different answers for different uses. The significant changes are all in ValueTracking. Two main changes: First, as with the rest of the code, new parameters need to be passed around. To make this easier, I grouped them into a structure, and I made internal static versions of the relevant functions that take this structure as a parameter. The new code does as you might expect, it looks for @llvm.assume calls that make use of the value we're trying to learn something about (often indirectly), attempts to pattern match that expression, and uses the result if successful. By making use of the AssumptionTracker, the process of finding @llvm.assume calls is not expensive. Part of the structure being passed around inside ValueTracking is a set of already-considered @llvm.assume calls. This is to prevent a query using, for example, the assume(a == b), to recurse on itself. The context and DT params are used to find applicable assumptions. An assumption needs to dominate the context instruction, or come after it deterministically. In this latter case we only handle the specific case where both the assumption and the context instruction are in the same block, and we need to exclude assumptions from being used to simplify their own ephemeral values (those which contribute only to the assumption) because otherwise the assumption would prove its feeding comparison trivial and would be removed. This commit adds the plumbing and the logic for a simple masked-bit propagation (just enough to write a regression test). Future commits add more patterns (and, correspondingly, more regression tests). llvm-svn: 217342
2014-09-08 02:57:58 +08:00
// There are two restrictions on the use of an assume:
// 1. The assume must dominate the context (or the control flow must
// reach the assume whenever it reaches the context).
// 2. The context must not be in the assume's set of ephemeral values
// (otherwise we will use the assume to prove that the condition
// feeding the assume is trivially true, thus causing the removal of
// the assume).
if (DT) {
if (DT->dominates(Inv, CxtI))
Make use of @llvm.assume in ValueTracking (computeKnownBits, etc.) This change, which allows @llvm.assume to be used from within computeKnownBits (and other associated functions in ValueTracking), adds some (optional) parameters to computeKnownBits and friends. These functions now (optionally) take a "context" instruction pointer, an AssumptionTracker pointer, and also a DomTree pointer, and most of the changes are just to pass this new information when it is easily available from InstSimplify, InstCombine, etc. As explained below, the significant conceptual change is that known properties of a value might depend on the control-flow location of the use (because we care that the @llvm.assume dominates the use because assumptions have control-flow dependencies). This means that, when we ask if bits are known in a value, we might get different answers for different uses. The significant changes are all in ValueTracking. Two main changes: First, as with the rest of the code, new parameters need to be passed around. To make this easier, I grouped them into a structure, and I made internal static versions of the relevant functions that take this structure as a parameter. The new code does as you might expect, it looks for @llvm.assume calls that make use of the value we're trying to learn something about (often indirectly), attempts to pattern match that expression, and uses the result if successful. By making use of the AssumptionTracker, the process of finding @llvm.assume calls is not expensive. Part of the structure being passed around inside ValueTracking is a set of already-considered @llvm.assume calls. This is to prevent a query using, for example, the assume(a == b), to recurse on itself. The context and DT params are used to find applicable assumptions. An assumption needs to dominate the context instruction, or come after it deterministically. In this latter case we only handle the specific case where both the assumption and the context instruction are in the same block, and we need to exclude assumptions from being used to simplify their own ephemeral values (those which contribute only to the assumption) because otherwise the assumption would prove its feeding comparison trivial and would be removed. This commit adds the plumbing and the logic for a simple masked-bit propagation (just enough to write a regression test). Future commits add more patterns (and, correspondingly, more regression tests). llvm-svn: 217342
2014-09-08 02:57:58 +08:00
return true;
} else if (Inv->getParent() == CxtI->getParent()->getSinglePredecessor()) {
// We don't have a DT, but this trivially dominates.
return true;
}
Make use of @llvm.assume in ValueTracking (computeKnownBits, etc.) This change, which allows @llvm.assume to be used from within computeKnownBits (and other associated functions in ValueTracking), adds some (optional) parameters to computeKnownBits and friends. These functions now (optionally) take a "context" instruction pointer, an AssumptionTracker pointer, and also a DomTree pointer, and most of the changes are just to pass this new information when it is easily available from InstSimplify, InstCombine, etc. As explained below, the significant conceptual change is that known properties of a value might depend on the control-flow location of the use (because we care that the @llvm.assume dominates the use because assumptions have control-flow dependencies). This means that, when we ask if bits are known in a value, we might get different answers for different uses. The significant changes are all in ValueTracking. Two main changes: First, as with the rest of the code, new parameters need to be passed around. To make this easier, I grouped them into a structure, and I made internal static versions of the relevant functions that take this structure as a parameter. The new code does as you might expect, it looks for @llvm.assume calls that make use of the value we're trying to learn something about (often indirectly), attempts to pattern match that expression, and uses the result if successful. By making use of the AssumptionTracker, the process of finding @llvm.assume calls is not expensive. Part of the structure being passed around inside ValueTracking is a set of already-considered @llvm.assume calls. This is to prevent a query using, for example, the assume(a == b), to recurse on itself. The context and DT params are used to find applicable assumptions. An assumption needs to dominate the context instruction, or come after it deterministically. In this latter case we only handle the specific case where both the assumption and the context instruction are in the same block, and we need to exclude assumptions from being used to simplify their own ephemeral values (those which contribute only to the assumption) because otherwise the assumption would prove its feeding comparison trivial and would be removed. This commit adds the plumbing and the logic for a simple masked-bit propagation (just enough to write a regression test). Future commits add more patterns (and, correspondingly, more regression tests). llvm-svn: 217342
2014-09-08 02:57:58 +08:00
// With or without a DT, the only remaining case we will check is if the
// instructions are in the same BB. Give up if that is not the case.
if (Inv->getParent() != CxtI->getParent())
Make use of @llvm.assume in ValueTracking (computeKnownBits, etc.) This change, which allows @llvm.assume to be used from within computeKnownBits (and other associated functions in ValueTracking), adds some (optional) parameters to computeKnownBits and friends. These functions now (optionally) take a "context" instruction pointer, an AssumptionTracker pointer, and also a DomTree pointer, and most of the changes are just to pass this new information when it is easily available from InstSimplify, InstCombine, etc. As explained below, the significant conceptual change is that known properties of a value might depend on the control-flow location of the use (because we care that the @llvm.assume dominates the use because assumptions have control-flow dependencies). This means that, when we ask if bits are known in a value, we might get different answers for different uses. The significant changes are all in ValueTracking. Two main changes: First, as with the rest of the code, new parameters need to be passed around. To make this easier, I grouped them into a structure, and I made internal static versions of the relevant functions that take this structure as a parameter. The new code does as you might expect, it looks for @llvm.assume calls that make use of the value we're trying to learn something about (often indirectly), attempts to pattern match that expression, and uses the result if successful. By making use of the AssumptionTracker, the process of finding @llvm.assume calls is not expensive. Part of the structure being passed around inside ValueTracking is a set of already-considered @llvm.assume calls. This is to prevent a query using, for example, the assume(a == b), to recurse on itself. The context and DT params are used to find applicable assumptions. An assumption needs to dominate the context instruction, or come after it deterministically. In this latter case we only handle the specific case where both the assumption and the context instruction are in the same block, and we need to exclude assumptions from being used to simplify their own ephemeral values (those which contribute only to the assumption) because otherwise the assumption would prove its feeding comparison trivial and would be removed. This commit adds the plumbing and the logic for a simple masked-bit propagation (just enough to write a regression test). Future commits add more patterns (and, correspondingly, more regression tests). llvm-svn: 217342
2014-09-08 02:57:58 +08:00
return false;
// If we have a dom tree, then we now know that the assume doens't dominate
// the other instruction. If we don't have a dom tree then we can check if
// the assume is first in the BB.
if (!DT) {
Make use of @llvm.assume in ValueTracking (computeKnownBits, etc.) This change, which allows @llvm.assume to be used from within computeKnownBits (and other associated functions in ValueTracking), adds some (optional) parameters to computeKnownBits and friends. These functions now (optionally) take a "context" instruction pointer, an AssumptionTracker pointer, and also a DomTree pointer, and most of the changes are just to pass this new information when it is easily available from InstSimplify, InstCombine, etc. As explained below, the significant conceptual change is that known properties of a value might depend on the control-flow location of the use (because we care that the @llvm.assume dominates the use because assumptions have control-flow dependencies). This means that, when we ask if bits are known in a value, we might get different answers for different uses. The significant changes are all in ValueTracking. Two main changes: First, as with the rest of the code, new parameters need to be passed around. To make this easier, I grouped them into a structure, and I made internal static versions of the relevant functions that take this structure as a parameter. The new code does as you might expect, it looks for @llvm.assume calls that make use of the value we're trying to learn something about (often indirectly), attempts to pattern match that expression, and uses the result if successful. By making use of the AssumptionTracker, the process of finding @llvm.assume calls is not expensive. Part of the structure being passed around inside ValueTracking is a set of already-considered @llvm.assume calls. This is to prevent a query using, for example, the assume(a == b), to recurse on itself. The context and DT params are used to find applicable assumptions. An assumption needs to dominate the context instruction, or come after it deterministically. In this latter case we only handle the specific case where both the assumption and the context instruction are in the same block, and we need to exclude assumptions from being used to simplify their own ephemeral values (those which contribute only to the assumption) because otherwise the assumption would prove its feeding comparison trivial and would be removed. This commit adds the plumbing and the logic for a simple masked-bit propagation (just enough to write a regression test). Future commits add more patterns (and, correspondingly, more regression tests). llvm-svn: 217342
2014-09-08 02:57:58 +08:00
// Search forward from the assume until we reach the context (or the end
// of the block); the common case is that the assume will come first.
for (auto I = std::next(BasicBlock::const_iterator(Inv)),
Make use of @llvm.assume in ValueTracking (computeKnownBits, etc.) This change, which allows @llvm.assume to be used from within computeKnownBits (and other associated functions in ValueTracking), adds some (optional) parameters to computeKnownBits and friends. These functions now (optionally) take a "context" instruction pointer, an AssumptionTracker pointer, and also a DomTree pointer, and most of the changes are just to pass this new information when it is easily available from InstSimplify, InstCombine, etc. As explained below, the significant conceptual change is that known properties of a value might depend on the control-flow location of the use (because we care that the @llvm.assume dominates the use because assumptions have control-flow dependencies). This means that, when we ask if bits are known in a value, we might get different answers for different uses. The significant changes are all in ValueTracking. Two main changes: First, as with the rest of the code, new parameters need to be passed around. To make this easier, I grouped them into a structure, and I made internal static versions of the relevant functions that take this structure as a parameter. The new code does as you might expect, it looks for @llvm.assume calls that make use of the value we're trying to learn something about (often indirectly), attempts to pattern match that expression, and uses the result if successful. By making use of the AssumptionTracker, the process of finding @llvm.assume calls is not expensive. Part of the structure being passed around inside ValueTracking is a set of already-considered @llvm.assume calls. This is to prevent a query using, for example, the assume(a == b), to recurse on itself. The context and DT params are used to find applicable assumptions. An assumption needs to dominate the context instruction, or come after it deterministically. In this latter case we only handle the specific case where both the assumption and the context instruction are in the same block, and we need to exclude assumptions from being used to simplify their own ephemeral values (those which contribute only to the assumption) because otherwise the assumption would prove its feeding comparison trivial and would be removed. This commit adds the plumbing and the logic for a simple masked-bit propagation (just enough to write a regression test). Future commits add more patterns (and, correspondingly, more regression tests). llvm-svn: 217342
2014-09-08 02:57:58 +08:00
IE = Inv->getParent()->end(); I != IE; ++I)
if (&*I == CxtI)
Make use of @llvm.assume in ValueTracking (computeKnownBits, etc.) This change, which allows @llvm.assume to be used from within computeKnownBits (and other associated functions in ValueTracking), adds some (optional) parameters to computeKnownBits and friends. These functions now (optionally) take a "context" instruction pointer, an AssumptionTracker pointer, and also a DomTree pointer, and most of the changes are just to pass this new information when it is easily available from InstSimplify, InstCombine, etc. As explained below, the significant conceptual change is that known properties of a value might depend on the control-flow location of the use (because we care that the @llvm.assume dominates the use because assumptions have control-flow dependencies). This means that, when we ask if bits are known in a value, we might get different answers for different uses. The significant changes are all in ValueTracking. Two main changes: First, as with the rest of the code, new parameters need to be passed around. To make this easier, I grouped them into a structure, and I made internal static versions of the relevant functions that take this structure as a parameter. The new code does as you might expect, it looks for @llvm.assume calls that make use of the value we're trying to learn something about (often indirectly), attempts to pattern match that expression, and uses the result if successful. By making use of the AssumptionTracker, the process of finding @llvm.assume calls is not expensive. Part of the structure being passed around inside ValueTracking is a set of already-considered @llvm.assume calls. This is to prevent a query using, for example, the assume(a == b), to recurse on itself. The context and DT params are used to find applicable assumptions. An assumption needs to dominate the context instruction, or come after it deterministically. In this latter case we only handle the specific case where both the assumption and the context instruction are in the same block, and we need to exclude assumptions from being used to simplify their own ephemeral values (those which contribute only to the assumption) because otherwise the assumption would prove its feeding comparison trivial and would be removed. This commit adds the plumbing and the logic for a simple masked-bit propagation (just enough to write a regression test). Future commits add more patterns (and, correspondingly, more regression tests). llvm-svn: 217342
2014-09-08 02:57:58 +08:00
return true;
}
// The context comes first, but they're both in the same block. Make sure
// there is nothing in between that might interrupt the control flow.
for (BasicBlock::const_iterator I =
std::next(BasicBlock::const_iterator(CxtI)), IE(Inv);
I != IE; ++I)
if (!isSafeToSpeculativelyExecute(&*I) && !isAssumeLikeIntrinsic(&*I))
return false;
return !isEphemeralValueOf(Inv, CxtI);
Make use of @llvm.assume in ValueTracking (computeKnownBits, etc.) This change, which allows @llvm.assume to be used from within computeKnownBits (and other associated functions in ValueTracking), adds some (optional) parameters to computeKnownBits and friends. These functions now (optionally) take a "context" instruction pointer, an AssumptionTracker pointer, and also a DomTree pointer, and most of the changes are just to pass this new information when it is easily available from InstSimplify, InstCombine, etc. As explained below, the significant conceptual change is that known properties of a value might depend on the control-flow location of the use (because we care that the @llvm.assume dominates the use because assumptions have control-flow dependencies). This means that, when we ask if bits are known in a value, we might get different answers for different uses. The significant changes are all in ValueTracking. Two main changes: First, as with the rest of the code, new parameters need to be passed around. To make this easier, I grouped them into a structure, and I made internal static versions of the relevant functions that take this structure as a parameter. The new code does as you might expect, it looks for @llvm.assume calls that make use of the value we're trying to learn something about (often indirectly), attempts to pattern match that expression, and uses the result if successful. By making use of the AssumptionTracker, the process of finding @llvm.assume calls is not expensive. Part of the structure being passed around inside ValueTracking is a set of already-considered @llvm.assume calls. This is to prevent a query using, for example, the assume(a == b), to recurse on itself. The context and DT params are used to find applicable assumptions. An assumption needs to dominate the context instruction, or come after it deterministically. In this latter case we only handle the specific case where both the assumption and the context instruction are in the same block, and we need to exclude assumptions from being used to simplify their own ephemeral values (those which contribute only to the assumption) because otherwise the assumption would prove its feeding comparison trivial and would be removed. This commit adds the plumbing and the logic for a simple masked-bit propagation (just enough to write a regression test). Future commits add more patterns (and, correspondingly, more regression tests). llvm-svn: 217342
2014-09-08 02:57:58 +08:00
}
static void computeKnownBitsFromAssume(const Value *V, APInt &KnownZero,
APInt &KnownOne, unsigned Depth,
const Query &Q) {
Make use of @llvm.assume in ValueTracking (computeKnownBits, etc.) This change, which allows @llvm.assume to be used from within computeKnownBits (and other associated functions in ValueTracking), adds some (optional) parameters to computeKnownBits and friends. These functions now (optionally) take a "context" instruction pointer, an AssumptionTracker pointer, and also a DomTree pointer, and most of the changes are just to pass this new information when it is easily available from InstSimplify, InstCombine, etc. As explained below, the significant conceptual change is that known properties of a value might depend on the control-flow location of the use (because we care that the @llvm.assume dominates the use because assumptions have control-flow dependencies). This means that, when we ask if bits are known in a value, we might get different answers for different uses. The significant changes are all in ValueTracking. Two main changes: First, as with the rest of the code, new parameters need to be passed around. To make this easier, I grouped them into a structure, and I made internal static versions of the relevant functions that take this structure as a parameter. The new code does as you might expect, it looks for @llvm.assume calls that make use of the value we're trying to learn something about (often indirectly), attempts to pattern match that expression, and uses the result if successful. By making use of the AssumptionTracker, the process of finding @llvm.assume calls is not expensive. Part of the structure being passed around inside ValueTracking is a set of already-considered @llvm.assume calls. This is to prevent a query using, for example, the assume(a == b), to recurse on itself. The context and DT params are used to find applicable assumptions. An assumption needs to dominate the context instruction, or come after it deterministically. In this latter case we only handle the specific case where both the assumption and the context instruction are in the same block, and we need to exclude assumptions from being used to simplify their own ephemeral values (those which contribute only to the assumption) because otherwise the assumption would prove its feeding comparison trivial and would be removed. This commit adds the plumbing and the logic for a simple masked-bit propagation (just enough to write a regression test). Future commits add more patterns (and, correspondingly, more regression tests). llvm-svn: 217342
2014-09-08 02:57:58 +08:00
// Use of assumptions is context-sensitive. If we don't have a context, we
// cannot use them!
if (!Q.AC || !Q.CxtI)
Make use of @llvm.assume in ValueTracking (computeKnownBits, etc.) This change, which allows @llvm.assume to be used from within computeKnownBits (and other associated functions in ValueTracking), adds some (optional) parameters to computeKnownBits and friends. These functions now (optionally) take a "context" instruction pointer, an AssumptionTracker pointer, and also a DomTree pointer, and most of the changes are just to pass this new information when it is easily available from InstSimplify, InstCombine, etc. As explained below, the significant conceptual change is that known properties of a value might depend on the control-flow location of the use (because we care that the @llvm.assume dominates the use because assumptions have control-flow dependencies). This means that, when we ask if bits are known in a value, we might get different answers for different uses. The significant changes are all in ValueTracking. Two main changes: First, as with the rest of the code, new parameters need to be passed around. To make this easier, I grouped them into a structure, and I made internal static versions of the relevant functions that take this structure as a parameter. The new code does as you might expect, it looks for @llvm.assume calls that make use of the value we're trying to learn something about (often indirectly), attempts to pattern match that expression, and uses the result if successful. By making use of the AssumptionTracker, the process of finding @llvm.assume calls is not expensive. Part of the structure being passed around inside ValueTracking is a set of already-considered @llvm.assume calls. This is to prevent a query using, for example, the assume(a == b), to recurse on itself. The context and DT params are used to find applicable assumptions. An assumption needs to dominate the context instruction, or come after it deterministically. In this latter case we only handle the specific case where both the assumption and the context instruction are in the same block, and we need to exclude assumptions from being used to simplify their own ephemeral values (those which contribute only to the assumption) because otherwise the assumption would prove its feeding comparison trivial and would be removed. This commit adds the plumbing and the logic for a simple masked-bit propagation (just enough to write a regression test). Future commits add more patterns (and, correspondingly, more regression tests). llvm-svn: 217342
2014-09-08 02:57:58 +08:00
return;
unsigned BitWidth = KnownZero.getBitWidth();
// Note that the patterns below need to be kept in sync with the code
// in AssumptionCache::updateAffectedValues.
for (auto &AssumeVH : Q.AC->assumptionsFor(V)) {
if (!AssumeVH)
continue;
CallInst *I = cast<CallInst>(AssumeVH);
assert(I->getParent()->getParent() == Q.CxtI->getParent()->getParent() &&
"Got assumption for the wrong function!");
if (Q.isExcluded(I))
Make use of @llvm.assume in ValueTracking (computeKnownBits, etc.) This change, which allows @llvm.assume to be used from within computeKnownBits (and other associated functions in ValueTracking), adds some (optional) parameters to computeKnownBits and friends. These functions now (optionally) take a "context" instruction pointer, an AssumptionTracker pointer, and also a DomTree pointer, and most of the changes are just to pass this new information when it is easily available from InstSimplify, InstCombine, etc. As explained below, the significant conceptual change is that known properties of a value might depend on the control-flow location of the use (because we care that the @llvm.assume dominates the use because assumptions have control-flow dependencies). This means that, when we ask if bits are known in a value, we might get different answers for different uses. The significant changes are all in ValueTracking. Two main changes: First, as with the rest of the code, new parameters need to be passed around. To make this easier, I grouped them into a structure, and I made internal static versions of the relevant functions that take this structure as a parameter. The new code does as you might expect, it looks for @llvm.assume calls that make use of the value we're trying to learn something about (often indirectly), attempts to pattern match that expression, and uses the result if successful. By making use of the AssumptionTracker, the process of finding @llvm.assume calls is not expensive. Part of the structure being passed around inside ValueTracking is a set of already-considered @llvm.assume calls. This is to prevent a query using, for example, the assume(a == b), to recurse on itself. The context and DT params are used to find applicable assumptions. An assumption needs to dominate the context instruction, or come after it deterministically. In this latter case we only handle the specific case where both the assumption and the context instruction are in the same block, and we need to exclude assumptions from being used to simplify their own ephemeral values (those which contribute only to the assumption) because otherwise the assumption would prove its feeding comparison trivial and would be removed. This commit adds the plumbing and the logic for a simple masked-bit propagation (just enough to write a regression test). Future commits add more patterns (and, correspondingly, more regression tests). llvm-svn: 217342
2014-09-08 02:57:58 +08:00
continue;
// Warning: This loop can end up being somewhat performance sensetive.
// We're running this loop for once for each value queried resulting in a
// runtime of ~O(#assumes * #values).
assert(I->getCalledFunction()->getIntrinsicID() == Intrinsic::assume &&
"must be an assume intrinsic");
Value *Arg = I->getArgOperand(0);
if (Arg == V && isValidAssumeForContext(I, Q.CxtI, Q.DT)) {
Make use of @llvm.assume in ValueTracking (computeKnownBits, etc.) This change, which allows @llvm.assume to be used from within computeKnownBits (and other associated functions in ValueTracking), adds some (optional) parameters to computeKnownBits and friends. These functions now (optionally) take a "context" instruction pointer, an AssumptionTracker pointer, and also a DomTree pointer, and most of the changes are just to pass this new information when it is easily available from InstSimplify, InstCombine, etc. As explained below, the significant conceptual change is that known properties of a value might depend on the control-flow location of the use (because we care that the @llvm.assume dominates the use because assumptions have control-flow dependencies). This means that, when we ask if bits are known in a value, we might get different answers for different uses. The significant changes are all in ValueTracking. Two main changes: First, as with the rest of the code, new parameters need to be passed around. To make this easier, I grouped them into a structure, and I made internal static versions of the relevant functions that take this structure as a parameter. The new code does as you might expect, it looks for @llvm.assume calls that make use of the value we're trying to learn something about (often indirectly), attempts to pattern match that expression, and uses the result if successful. By making use of the AssumptionTracker, the process of finding @llvm.assume calls is not expensive. Part of the structure being passed around inside ValueTracking is a set of already-considered @llvm.assume calls. This is to prevent a query using, for example, the assume(a == b), to recurse on itself. The context and DT params are used to find applicable assumptions. An assumption needs to dominate the context instruction, or come after it deterministically. In this latter case we only handle the specific case where both the assumption and the context instruction are in the same block, and we need to exclude assumptions from being used to simplify their own ephemeral values (those which contribute only to the assumption) because otherwise the assumption would prove its feeding comparison trivial and would be removed. This commit adds the plumbing and the logic for a simple masked-bit propagation (just enough to write a regression test). Future commits add more patterns (and, correspondingly, more regression tests). llvm-svn: 217342
2014-09-08 02:57:58 +08:00
assert(BitWidth == 1 && "assume operand is not i1?");
KnownZero.clearAllBits();
KnownOne.setAllBits();
return;
}
if (match(Arg, m_Not(m_Specific(V))) &&
isValidAssumeForContext(I, Q.CxtI, Q.DT)) {
assert(BitWidth == 1 && "assume operand is not i1?");
KnownZero.setAllBits();
KnownOne.clearAllBits();
return;
}
Make use of @llvm.assume in ValueTracking (computeKnownBits, etc.) This change, which allows @llvm.assume to be used from within computeKnownBits (and other associated functions in ValueTracking), adds some (optional) parameters to computeKnownBits and friends. These functions now (optionally) take a "context" instruction pointer, an AssumptionTracker pointer, and also a DomTree pointer, and most of the changes are just to pass this new information when it is easily available from InstSimplify, InstCombine, etc. As explained below, the significant conceptual change is that known properties of a value might depend on the control-flow location of the use (because we care that the @llvm.assume dominates the use because assumptions have control-flow dependencies). This means that, when we ask if bits are known in a value, we might get different answers for different uses. The significant changes are all in ValueTracking. Two main changes: First, as with the rest of the code, new parameters need to be passed around. To make this easier, I grouped them into a structure, and I made internal static versions of the relevant functions that take this structure as a parameter. The new code does as you might expect, it looks for @llvm.assume calls that make use of the value we're trying to learn something about (often indirectly), attempts to pattern match that expression, and uses the result if successful. By making use of the AssumptionTracker, the process of finding @llvm.assume calls is not expensive. Part of the structure being passed around inside ValueTracking is a set of already-considered @llvm.assume calls. This is to prevent a query using, for example, the assume(a == b), to recurse on itself. The context and DT params are used to find applicable assumptions. An assumption needs to dominate the context instruction, or come after it deterministically. In this latter case we only handle the specific case where both the assumption and the context instruction are in the same block, and we need to exclude assumptions from being used to simplify their own ephemeral values (those which contribute only to the assumption) because otherwise the assumption would prove its feeding comparison trivial and would be removed. This commit adds the plumbing and the logic for a simple masked-bit propagation (just enough to write a regression test). Future commits add more patterns (and, correspondingly, more regression tests). llvm-svn: 217342
2014-09-08 02:57:58 +08:00
// The remaining tests are all recursive, so bail out if we hit the limit.
if (Depth == MaxDepth)
continue;
Make use of @llvm.assume in ValueTracking (computeKnownBits, etc.) This change, which allows @llvm.assume to be used from within computeKnownBits (and other associated functions in ValueTracking), adds some (optional) parameters to computeKnownBits and friends. These functions now (optionally) take a "context" instruction pointer, an AssumptionTracker pointer, and also a DomTree pointer, and most of the changes are just to pass this new information when it is easily available from InstSimplify, InstCombine, etc. As explained below, the significant conceptual change is that known properties of a value might depend on the control-flow location of the use (because we care that the @llvm.assume dominates the use because assumptions have control-flow dependencies). This means that, when we ask if bits are known in a value, we might get different answers for different uses. The significant changes are all in ValueTracking. Two main changes: First, as with the rest of the code, new parameters need to be passed around. To make this easier, I grouped them into a structure, and I made internal static versions of the relevant functions that take this structure as a parameter. The new code does as you might expect, it looks for @llvm.assume calls that make use of the value we're trying to learn something about (often indirectly), attempts to pattern match that expression, and uses the result if successful. By making use of the AssumptionTracker, the process of finding @llvm.assume calls is not expensive. Part of the structure being passed around inside ValueTracking is a set of already-considered @llvm.assume calls. This is to prevent a query using, for example, the assume(a == b), to recurse on itself. The context and DT params are used to find applicable assumptions. An assumption needs to dominate the context instruction, or come after it deterministically. In this latter case we only handle the specific case where both the assumption and the context instruction are in the same block, and we need to exclude assumptions from being used to simplify their own ephemeral values (those which contribute only to the assumption) because otherwise the assumption would prove its feeding comparison trivial and would be removed. This commit adds the plumbing and the logic for a simple masked-bit propagation (just enough to write a regression test). Future commits add more patterns (and, correspondingly, more regression tests). llvm-svn: 217342
2014-09-08 02:57:58 +08:00
Value *A, *B;
auto m_V = m_CombineOr(m_Specific(V),
m_CombineOr(m_PtrToInt(m_Specific(V)),
m_BitCast(m_Specific(V))));
CmpInst::Predicate Pred;
Add additional patterns for @llvm.assume in ValueTracking This builds on r217342, which added the infrastructure to compute known bits using assumptions (@llvm.assume calls). That original commit added only a few patterns (to catch common cases related to determining pointer alignment); this change adds several other patterns for simple cases. r217342 contained that, for assume(v & b = a), bits in the mask that are known to be one, we can propagate known bits from the a to v. It also had a known-bits transfer for assume(a = b). This patch adds: assume(~(v & b) = a) : For those bits in the mask that are known to be one, we can propagate inverted known bits from the a to v. assume(v | b = a) : For those bits in b that are known to be zero, we can propagate known bits from the a to v. assume(~(v | b) = a): For those bits in b that are known to be zero, we can propagate inverted known bits from the a to v. assume(v ^ b = a) : For those bits in b that are known to be zero, we can propagate known bits from the a to v. For those bits in b that are known to be one, we can propagate inverted known bits from the a to v. assume(~(v ^ b) = a) : For those bits in b that are known to be zero, we can propagate inverted known bits from the a to v. For those bits in b that are known to be one, we can propagate known bits from the a to v. assume(v << c = a) : For those bits in a that are known, we can propagate them to known bits in v shifted to the right by c. assume(~(v << c) = a) : For those bits in a that are known, we can propagate them inverted to known bits in v shifted to the right by c. assume(v >> c = a) : For those bits in a that are known, we can propagate them to known bits in v shifted to the right by c. assume(~(v >> c) = a) : For those bits in a that are known, we can propagate them inverted to known bits in v shifted to the right by c. assume(v >=_s c) where c is non-negative: The sign bit of v is zero assume(v >_s c) where c is at least -1: The sign bit of v is zero assume(v <=_s c) where c is negative: The sign bit of v is one assume(v <_s c) where c is non-positive: The sign bit of v is one assume(v <=_u c): Transfer the known high zero bits assume(v <_u c): Transfer the known high zero bits (if c is know to be a power of 2, transfer one more) A small addition to InstCombine was necessary for some of the test cases. The problem is that when InstCombine was simplifying and, or, etc. it would fail to check the 'do I know all of the bits' condition before checking less specific conditions and would not fully constant-fold the result. I'm not sure how to trigger this aside from using assumptions, so I've just included the change here. llvm-svn: 217343
2014-09-08 03:21:07 +08:00
ConstantInt *C;
Make use of @llvm.assume in ValueTracking (computeKnownBits, etc.) This change, which allows @llvm.assume to be used from within computeKnownBits (and other associated functions in ValueTracking), adds some (optional) parameters to computeKnownBits and friends. These functions now (optionally) take a "context" instruction pointer, an AssumptionTracker pointer, and also a DomTree pointer, and most of the changes are just to pass this new information when it is easily available from InstSimplify, InstCombine, etc. As explained below, the significant conceptual change is that known properties of a value might depend on the control-flow location of the use (because we care that the @llvm.assume dominates the use because assumptions have control-flow dependencies). This means that, when we ask if bits are known in a value, we might get different answers for different uses. The significant changes are all in ValueTracking. Two main changes: First, as with the rest of the code, new parameters need to be passed around. To make this easier, I grouped them into a structure, and I made internal static versions of the relevant functions that take this structure as a parameter. The new code does as you might expect, it looks for @llvm.assume calls that make use of the value we're trying to learn something about (often indirectly), attempts to pattern match that expression, and uses the result if successful. By making use of the AssumptionTracker, the process of finding @llvm.assume calls is not expensive. Part of the structure being passed around inside ValueTracking is a set of already-considered @llvm.assume calls. This is to prevent a query using, for example, the assume(a == b), to recurse on itself. The context and DT params are used to find applicable assumptions. An assumption needs to dominate the context instruction, or come after it deterministically. In this latter case we only handle the specific case where both the assumption and the context instruction are in the same block, and we need to exclude assumptions from being used to simplify their own ephemeral values (those which contribute only to the assumption) because otherwise the assumption would prove its feeding comparison trivial and would be removed. This commit adds the plumbing and the logic for a simple masked-bit propagation (just enough to write a regression test). Future commits add more patterns (and, correspondingly, more regression tests). llvm-svn: 217342
2014-09-08 02:57:58 +08:00
// assume(v = a)
if (match(Arg, m_c_ICmp(Pred, m_V, m_Value(A))) &&
Pred == ICmpInst::ICMP_EQ && isValidAssumeForContext(I, Q.CxtI, Q.DT)) {
Make use of @llvm.assume in ValueTracking (computeKnownBits, etc.) This change, which allows @llvm.assume to be used from within computeKnownBits (and other associated functions in ValueTracking), adds some (optional) parameters to computeKnownBits and friends. These functions now (optionally) take a "context" instruction pointer, an AssumptionTracker pointer, and also a DomTree pointer, and most of the changes are just to pass this new information when it is easily available from InstSimplify, InstCombine, etc. As explained below, the significant conceptual change is that known properties of a value might depend on the control-flow location of the use (because we care that the @llvm.assume dominates the use because assumptions have control-flow dependencies). This means that, when we ask if bits are known in a value, we might get different answers for different uses. The significant changes are all in ValueTracking. Two main changes: First, as with the rest of the code, new parameters need to be passed around. To make this easier, I grouped them into a structure, and I made internal static versions of the relevant functions that take this structure as a parameter. The new code does as you might expect, it looks for @llvm.assume calls that make use of the value we're trying to learn something about (often indirectly), attempts to pattern match that expression, and uses the result if successful. By making use of the AssumptionTracker, the process of finding @llvm.assume calls is not expensive. Part of the structure being passed around inside ValueTracking is a set of already-considered @llvm.assume calls. This is to prevent a query using, for example, the assume(a == b), to recurse on itself. The context and DT params are used to find applicable assumptions. An assumption needs to dominate the context instruction, or come after it deterministically. In this latter case we only handle the specific case where both the assumption and the context instruction are in the same block, and we need to exclude assumptions from being used to simplify their own ephemeral values (those which contribute only to the assumption) because otherwise the assumption would prove its feeding comparison trivial and would be removed. This commit adds the plumbing and the logic for a simple masked-bit propagation (just enough to write a regression test). Future commits add more patterns (and, correspondingly, more regression tests). llvm-svn: 217342
2014-09-08 02:57:58 +08:00
APInt RHSKnownZero(BitWidth, 0), RHSKnownOne(BitWidth, 0);
computeKnownBits(A, RHSKnownZero, RHSKnownOne, Depth+1, Query(Q, I));
Make use of @llvm.assume in ValueTracking (computeKnownBits, etc.) This change, which allows @llvm.assume to be used from within computeKnownBits (and other associated functions in ValueTracking), adds some (optional) parameters to computeKnownBits and friends. These functions now (optionally) take a "context" instruction pointer, an AssumptionTracker pointer, and also a DomTree pointer, and most of the changes are just to pass this new information when it is easily available from InstSimplify, InstCombine, etc. As explained below, the significant conceptual change is that known properties of a value might depend on the control-flow location of the use (because we care that the @llvm.assume dominates the use because assumptions have control-flow dependencies). This means that, when we ask if bits are known in a value, we might get different answers for different uses. The significant changes are all in ValueTracking. Two main changes: First, as with the rest of the code, new parameters need to be passed around. To make this easier, I grouped them into a structure, and I made internal static versions of the relevant functions that take this structure as a parameter. The new code does as you might expect, it looks for @llvm.assume calls that make use of the value we're trying to learn something about (often indirectly), attempts to pattern match that expression, and uses the result if successful. By making use of the AssumptionTracker, the process of finding @llvm.assume calls is not expensive. Part of the structure being passed around inside ValueTracking is a set of already-considered @llvm.assume calls. This is to prevent a query using, for example, the assume(a == b), to recurse on itself. The context and DT params are used to find applicable assumptions. An assumption needs to dominate the context instruction, or come after it deterministically. In this latter case we only handle the specific case where both the assumption and the context instruction are in the same block, and we need to exclude assumptions from being used to simplify their own ephemeral values (those which contribute only to the assumption) because otherwise the assumption would prove its feeding comparison trivial and would be removed. This commit adds the plumbing and the logic for a simple masked-bit propagation (just enough to write a regression test). Future commits add more patterns (and, correspondingly, more regression tests). llvm-svn: 217342
2014-09-08 02:57:58 +08:00
KnownZero |= RHSKnownZero;
KnownOne |= RHSKnownOne;
// assume(v & b = a)
} else if (match(Arg,
m_c_ICmp(Pred, m_c_And(m_V, m_Value(B)), m_Value(A))) &&
Pred == ICmpInst::ICMP_EQ &&
isValidAssumeForContext(I, Q.CxtI, Q.DT)) {
Make use of @llvm.assume in ValueTracking (computeKnownBits, etc.) This change, which allows @llvm.assume to be used from within computeKnownBits (and other associated functions in ValueTracking), adds some (optional) parameters to computeKnownBits and friends. These functions now (optionally) take a "context" instruction pointer, an AssumptionTracker pointer, and also a DomTree pointer, and most of the changes are just to pass this new information when it is easily available from InstSimplify, InstCombine, etc. As explained below, the significant conceptual change is that known properties of a value might depend on the control-flow location of the use (because we care that the @llvm.assume dominates the use because assumptions have control-flow dependencies). This means that, when we ask if bits are known in a value, we might get different answers for different uses. The significant changes are all in ValueTracking. Two main changes: First, as with the rest of the code, new parameters need to be passed around. To make this easier, I grouped them into a structure, and I made internal static versions of the relevant functions that take this structure as a parameter. The new code does as you might expect, it looks for @llvm.assume calls that make use of the value we're trying to learn something about (often indirectly), attempts to pattern match that expression, and uses the result if successful. By making use of the AssumptionTracker, the process of finding @llvm.assume calls is not expensive. Part of the structure being passed around inside ValueTracking is a set of already-considered @llvm.assume calls. This is to prevent a query using, for example, the assume(a == b), to recurse on itself. The context and DT params are used to find applicable assumptions. An assumption needs to dominate the context instruction, or come after it deterministically. In this latter case we only handle the specific case where both the assumption and the context instruction are in the same block, and we need to exclude assumptions from being used to simplify their own ephemeral values (those which contribute only to the assumption) because otherwise the assumption would prove its feeding comparison trivial and would be removed. This commit adds the plumbing and the logic for a simple masked-bit propagation (just enough to write a regression test). Future commits add more patterns (and, correspondingly, more regression tests). llvm-svn: 217342
2014-09-08 02:57:58 +08:00
APInt RHSKnownZero(BitWidth, 0), RHSKnownOne(BitWidth, 0);
computeKnownBits(A, RHSKnownZero, RHSKnownOne, Depth+1, Query(Q, I));
Make use of @llvm.assume in ValueTracking (computeKnownBits, etc.) This change, which allows @llvm.assume to be used from within computeKnownBits (and other associated functions in ValueTracking), adds some (optional) parameters to computeKnownBits and friends. These functions now (optionally) take a "context" instruction pointer, an AssumptionTracker pointer, and also a DomTree pointer, and most of the changes are just to pass this new information when it is easily available from InstSimplify, InstCombine, etc. As explained below, the significant conceptual change is that known properties of a value might depend on the control-flow location of the use (because we care that the @llvm.assume dominates the use because assumptions have control-flow dependencies). This means that, when we ask if bits are known in a value, we might get different answers for different uses. The significant changes are all in ValueTracking. Two main changes: First, as with the rest of the code, new parameters need to be passed around. To make this easier, I grouped them into a structure, and I made internal static versions of the relevant functions that take this structure as a parameter. The new code does as you might expect, it looks for @llvm.assume calls that make use of the value we're trying to learn something about (often indirectly), attempts to pattern match that expression, and uses the result if successful. By making use of the AssumptionTracker, the process of finding @llvm.assume calls is not expensive. Part of the structure being passed around inside ValueTracking is a set of already-considered @llvm.assume calls. This is to prevent a query using, for example, the assume(a == b), to recurse on itself. The context and DT params are used to find applicable assumptions. An assumption needs to dominate the context instruction, or come after it deterministically. In this latter case we only handle the specific case where both the assumption and the context instruction are in the same block, and we need to exclude assumptions from being used to simplify their own ephemeral values (those which contribute only to the assumption) because otherwise the assumption would prove its feeding comparison trivial and would be removed. This commit adds the plumbing and the logic for a simple masked-bit propagation (just enough to write a regression test). Future commits add more patterns (and, correspondingly, more regression tests). llvm-svn: 217342
2014-09-08 02:57:58 +08:00
APInt MaskKnownZero(BitWidth, 0), MaskKnownOne(BitWidth, 0);
computeKnownBits(B, MaskKnownZero, MaskKnownOne, Depth+1, Query(Q, I));
Make use of @llvm.assume in ValueTracking (computeKnownBits, etc.) This change, which allows @llvm.assume to be used from within computeKnownBits (and other associated functions in ValueTracking), adds some (optional) parameters to computeKnownBits and friends. These functions now (optionally) take a "context" instruction pointer, an AssumptionTracker pointer, and also a DomTree pointer, and most of the changes are just to pass this new information when it is easily available from InstSimplify, InstCombine, etc. As explained below, the significant conceptual change is that known properties of a value might depend on the control-flow location of the use (because we care that the @llvm.assume dominates the use because assumptions have control-flow dependencies). This means that, when we ask if bits are known in a value, we might get different answers for different uses. The significant changes are all in ValueTracking. Two main changes: First, as with the rest of the code, new parameters need to be passed around. To make this easier, I grouped them into a structure, and I made internal static versions of the relevant functions that take this structure as a parameter. The new code does as you might expect, it looks for @llvm.assume calls that make use of the value we're trying to learn something about (often indirectly), attempts to pattern match that expression, and uses the result if successful. By making use of the AssumptionTracker, the process of finding @llvm.assume calls is not expensive. Part of the structure being passed around inside ValueTracking is a set of already-considered @llvm.assume calls. This is to prevent a query using, for example, the assume(a == b), to recurse on itself. The context and DT params are used to find applicable assumptions. An assumption needs to dominate the context instruction, or come after it deterministically. In this latter case we only handle the specific case where both the assumption and the context instruction are in the same block, and we need to exclude assumptions from being used to simplify their own ephemeral values (those which contribute only to the assumption) because otherwise the assumption would prove its feeding comparison trivial and would be removed. This commit adds the plumbing and the logic for a simple masked-bit propagation (just enough to write a regression test). Future commits add more patterns (and, correspondingly, more regression tests). llvm-svn: 217342
2014-09-08 02:57:58 +08:00
// For those bits in the mask that are known to be one, we can propagate
// known bits from the RHS to V.
KnownZero |= RHSKnownZero & MaskKnownOne;
KnownOne |= RHSKnownOne & MaskKnownOne;
Add additional patterns for @llvm.assume in ValueTracking This builds on r217342, which added the infrastructure to compute known bits using assumptions (@llvm.assume calls). That original commit added only a few patterns (to catch common cases related to determining pointer alignment); this change adds several other patterns for simple cases. r217342 contained that, for assume(v & b = a), bits in the mask that are known to be one, we can propagate known bits from the a to v. It also had a known-bits transfer for assume(a = b). This patch adds: assume(~(v & b) = a) : For those bits in the mask that are known to be one, we can propagate inverted known bits from the a to v. assume(v | b = a) : For those bits in b that are known to be zero, we can propagate known bits from the a to v. assume(~(v | b) = a): For those bits in b that are known to be zero, we can propagate inverted known bits from the a to v. assume(v ^ b = a) : For those bits in b that are known to be zero, we can propagate known bits from the a to v. For those bits in b that are known to be one, we can propagate inverted known bits from the a to v. assume(~(v ^ b) = a) : For those bits in b that are known to be zero, we can propagate inverted known bits from the a to v. For those bits in b that are known to be one, we can propagate known bits from the a to v. assume(v << c = a) : For those bits in a that are known, we can propagate them to known bits in v shifted to the right by c. assume(~(v << c) = a) : For those bits in a that are known, we can propagate them inverted to known bits in v shifted to the right by c. assume(v >> c = a) : For those bits in a that are known, we can propagate them to known bits in v shifted to the right by c. assume(~(v >> c) = a) : For those bits in a that are known, we can propagate them inverted to known bits in v shifted to the right by c. assume(v >=_s c) where c is non-negative: The sign bit of v is zero assume(v >_s c) where c is at least -1: The sign bit of v is zero assume(v <=_s c) where c is negative: The sign bit of v is one assume(v <_s c) where c is non-positive: The sign bit of v is one assume(v <=_u c): Transfer the known high zero bits assume(v <_u c): Transfer the known high zero bits (if c is know to be a power of 2, transfer one more) A small addition to InstCombine was necessary for some of the test cases. The problem is that when InstCombine was simplifying and, or, etc. it would fail to check the 'do I know all of the bits' condition before checking less specific conditions and would not fully constant-fold the result. I'm not sure how to trigger this aside from using assumptions, so I've just included the change here. llvm-svn: 217343
2014-09-08 03:21:07 +08:00
// assume(~(v & b) = a)
} else if (match(Arg, m_c_ICmp(Pred, m_Not(m_c_And(m_V, m_Value(B))),
m_Value(A))) &&
Pred == ICmpInst::ICMP_EQ &&
isValidAssumeForContext(I, Q.CxtI, Q.DT)) {
Add additional patterns for @llvm.assume in ValueTracking This builds on r217342, which added the infrastructure to compute known bits using assumptions (@llvm.assume calls). That original commit added only a few patterns (to catch common cases related to determining pointer alignment); this change adds several other patterns for simple cases. r217342 contained that, for assume(v & b = a), bits in the mask that are known to be one, we can propagate known bits from the a to v. It also had a known-bits transfer for assume(a = b). This patch adds: assume(~(v & b) = a) : For those bits in the mask that are known to be one, we can propagate inverted known bits from the a to v. assume(v | b = a) : For those bits in b that are known to be zero, we can propagate known bits from the a to v. assume(~(v | b) = a): For those bits in b that are known to be zero, we can propagate inverted known bits from the a to v. assume(v ^ b = a) : For those bits in b that are known to be zero, we can propagate known bits from the a to v. For those bits in b that are known to be one, we can propagate inverted known bits from the a to v. assume(~(v ^ b) = a) : For those bits in b that are known to be zero, we can propagate inverted known bits from the a to v. For those bits in b that are known to be one, we can propagate known bits from the a to v. assume(v << c = a) : For those bits in a that are known, we can propagate them to known bits in v shifted to the right by c. assume(~(v << c) = a) : For those bits in a that are known, we can propagate them inverted to known bits in v shifted to the right by c. assume(v >> c = a) : For those bits in a that are known, we can propagate them to known bits in v shifted to the right by c. assume(~(v >> c) = a) : For those bits in a that are known, we can propagate them inverted to known bits in v shifted to the right by c. assume(v >=_s c) where c is non-negative: The sign bit of v is zero assume(v >_s c) where c is at least -1: The sign bit of v is zero assume(v <=_s c) where c is negative: The sign bit of v is one assume(v <_s c) where c is non-positive: The sign bit of v is one assume(v <=_u c): Transfer the known high zero bits assume(v <_u c): Transfer the known high zero bits (if c is know to be a power of 2, transfer one more) A small addition to InstCombine was necessary for some of the test cases. The problem is that when InstCombine was simplifying and, or, etc. it would fail to check the 'do I know all of the bits' condition before checking less specific conditions and would not fully constant-fold the result. I'm not sure how to trigger this aside from using assumptions, so I've just included the change here. llvm-svn: 217343
2014-09-08 03:21:07 +08:00
APInt RHSKnownZero(BitWidth, 0), RHSKnownOne(BitWidth, 0);
computeKnownBits(A, RHSKnownZero, RHSKnownOne, Depth+1, Query(Q, I));
Add additional patterns for @llvm.assume in ValueTracking This builds on r217342, which added the infrastructure to compute known bits using assumptions (@llvm.assume calls). That original commit added only a few patterns (to catch common cases related to determining pointer alignment); this change adds several other patterns for simple cases. r217342 contained that, for assume(v & b = a), bits in the mask that are known to be one, we can propagate known bits from the a to v. It also had a known-bits transfer for assume(a = b). This patch adds: assume(~(v & b) = a) : For those bits in the mask that are known to be one, we can propagate inverted known bits from the a to v. assume(v | b = a) : For those bits in b that are known to be zero, we can propagate known bits from the a to v. assume(~(v | b) = a): For those bits in b that are known to be zero, we can propagate inverted known bits from the a to v. assume(v ^ b = a) : For those bits in b that are known to be zero, we can propagate known bits from the a to v. For those bits in b that are known to be one, we can propagate inverted known bits from the a to v. assume(~(v ^ b) = a) : For those bits in b that are known to be zero, we can propagate inverted known bits from the a to v. For those bits in b that are known to be one, we can propagate known bits from the a to v. assume(v << c = a) : For those bits in a that are known, we can propagate them to known bits in v shifted to the right by c. assume(~(v << c) = a) : For those bits in a that are known, we can propagate them inverted to known bits in v shifted to the right by c. assume(v >> c = a) : For those bits in a that are known, we can propagate them to known bits in v shifted to the right by c. assume(~(v >> c) = a) : For those bits in a that are known, we can propagate them inverted to known bits in v shifted to the right by c. assume(v >=_s c) where c is non-negative: The sign bit of v is zero assume(v >_s c) where c is at least -1: The sign bit of v is zero assume(v <=_s c) where c is negative: The sign bit of v is one assume(v <_s c) where c is non-positive: The sign bit of v is one assume(v <=_u c): Transfer the known high zero bits assume(v <_u c): Transfer the known high zero bits (if c is know to be a power of 2, transfer one more) A small addition to InstCombine was necessary for some of the test cases. The problem is that when InstCombine was simplifying and, or, etc. it would fail to check the 'do I know all of the bits' condition before checking less specific conditions and would not fully constant-fold the result. I'm not sure how to trigger this aside from using assumptions, so I've just included the change here. llvm-svn: 217343
2014-09-08 03:21:07 +08:00
APInt MaskKnownZero(BitWidth, 0), MaskKnownOne(BitWidth, 0);
computeKnownBits(B, MaskKnownZero, MaskKnownOne, Depth+1, Query(Q, I));
Add additional patterns for @llvm.assume in ValueTracking This builds on r217342, which added the infrastructure to compute known bits using assumptions (@llvm.assume calls). That original commit added only a few patterns (to catch common cases related to determining pointer alignment); this change adds several other patterns for simple cases. r217342 contained that, for assume(v & b = a), bits in the mask that are known to be one, we can propagate known bits from the a to v. It also had a known-bits transfer for assume(a = b). This patch adds: assume(~(v & b) = a) : For those bits in the mask that are known to be one, we can propagate inverted known bits from the a to v. assume(v | b = a) : For those bits in b that are known to be zero, we can propagate known bits from the a to v. assume(~(v | b) = a): For those bits in b that are known to be zero, we can propagate inverted known bits from the a to v. assume(v ^ b = a) : For those bits in b that are known to be zero, we can propagate known bits from the a to v. For those bits in b that are known to be one, we can propagate inverted known bits from the a to v. assume(~(v ^ b) = a) : For those bits in b that are known to be zero, we can propagate inverted known bits from the a to v. For those bits in b that are known to be one, we can propagate known bits from the a to v. assume(v << c = a) : For those bits in a that are known, we can propagate them to known bits in v shifted to the right by c. assume(~(v << c) = a) : For those bits in a that are known, we can propagate them inverted to known bits in v shifted to the right by c. assume(v >> c = a) : For those bits in a that are known, we can propagate them to known bits in v shifted to the right by c. assume(~(v >> c) = a) : For those bits in a that are known, we can propagate them inverted to known bits in v shifted to the right by c. assume(v >=_s c) where c is non-negative: The sign bit of v is zero assume(v >_s c) where c is at least -1: The sign bit of v is zero assume(v <=_s c) where c is negative: The sign bit of v is one assume(v <_s c) where c is non-positive: The sign bit of v is one assume(v <=_u c): Transfer the known high zero bits assume(v <_u c): Transfer the known high zero bits (if c is know to be a power of 2, transfer one more) A small addition to InstCombine was necessary for some of the test cases. The problem is that when InstCombine was simplifying and, or, etc. it would fail to check the 'do I know all of the bits' condition before checking less specific conditions and would not fully constant-fold the result. I'm not sure how to trigger this aside from using assumptions, so I've just included the change here. llvm-svn: 217343
2014-09-08 03:21:07 +08:00
// For those bits in the mask that are known to be one, we can propagate
// inverted known bits from the RHS to V.
KnownZero |= RHSKnownOne & MaskKnownOne;
KnownOne |= RHSKnownZero & MaskKnownOne;
// assume(v | b = a)
} else if (match(Arg,
m_c_ICmp(Pred, m_c_Or(m_V, m_Value(B)), m_Value(A))) &&
Pred == ICmpInst::ICMP_EQ &&
isValidAssumeForContext(I, Q.CxtI, Q.DT)) {
Add additional patterns for @llvm.assume in ValueTracking This builds on r217342, which added the infrastructure to compute known bits using assumptions (@llvm.assume calls). That original commit added only a few patterns (to catch common cases related to determining pointer alignment); this change adds several other patterns for simple cases. r217342 contained that, for assume(v & b = a), bits in the mask that are known to be one, we can propagate known bits from the a to v. It also had a known-bits transfer for assume(a = b). This patch adds: assume(~(v & b) = a) : For those bits in the mask that are known to be one, we can propagate inverted known bits from the a to v. assume(v | b = a) : For those bits in b that are known to be zero, we can propagate known bits from the a to v. assume(~(v | b) = a): For those bits in b that are known to be zero, we can propagate inverted known bits from the a to v. assume(v ^ b = a) : For those bits in b that are known to be zero, we can propagate known bits from the a to v. For those bits in b that are known to be one, we can propagate inverted known bits from the a to v. assume(~(v ^ b) = a) : For those bits in b that are known to be zero, we can propagate inverted known bits from the a to v. For those bits in b that are known to be one, we can propagate known bits from the a to v. assume(v << c = a) : For those bits in a that are known, we can propagate them to known bits in v shifted to the right by c. assume(~(v << c) = a) : For those bits in a that are known, we can propagate them inverted to known bits in v shifted to the right by c. assume(v >> c = a) : For those bits in a that are known, we can propagate them to known bits in v shifted to the right by c. assume(~(v >> c) = a) : For those bits in a that are known, we can propagate them inverted to known bits in v shifted to the right by c. assume(v >=_s c) where c is non-negative: The sign bit of v is zero assume(v >_s c) where c is at least -1: The sign bit of v is zero assume(v <=_s c) where c is negative: The sign bit of v is one assume(v <_s c) where c is non-positive: The sign bit of v is one assume(v <=_u c): Transfer the known high zero bits assume(v <_u c): Transfer the known high zero bits (if c is know to be a power of 2, transfer one more) A small addition to InstCombine was necessary for some of the test cases. The problem is that when InstCombine was simplifying and, or, etc. it would fail to check the 'do I know all of the bits' condition before checking less specific conditions and would not fully constant-fold the result. I'm not sure how to trigger this aside from using assumptions, so I've just included the change here. llvm-svn: 217343
2014-09-08 03:21:07 +08:00
APInt RHSKnownZero(BitWidth, 0), RHSKnownOne(BitWidth, 0);
computeKnownBits(A, RHSKnownZero, RHSKnownOne, Depth+1, Query(Q, I));
Add additional patterns for @llvm.assume in ValueTracking This builds on r217342, which added the infrastructure to compute known bits using assumptions (@llvm.assume calls). That original commit added only a few patterns (to catch common cases related to determining pointer alignment); this change adds several other patterns for simple cases. r217342 contained that, for assume(v & b = a), bits in the mask that are known to be one, we can propagate known bits from the a to v. It also had a known-bits transfer for assume(a = b). This patch adds: assume(~(v & b) = a) : For those bits in the mask that are known to be one, we can propagate inverted known bits from the a to v. assume(v | b = a) : For those bits in b that are known to be zero, we can propagate known bits from the a to v. assume(~(v | b) = a): For those bits in b that are known to be zero, we can propagate inverted known bits from the a to v. assume(v ^ b = a) : For those bits in b that are known to be zero, we can propagate known bits from the a to v. For those bits in b that are known to be one, we can propagate inverted known bits from the a to v. assume(~(v ^ b) = a) : For those bits in b that are known to be zero, we can propagate inverted known bits from the a to v. For those bits in b that are known to be one, we can propagate known bits from the a to v. assume(v << c = a) : For those bits in a that are known, we can propagate them to known bits in v shifted to the right by c. assume(~(v << c) = a) : For those bits in a that are known, we can propagate them inverted to known bits in v shifted to the right by c. assume(v >> c = a) : For those bits in a that are known, we can propagate them to known bits in v shifted to the right by c. assume(~(v >> c) = a) : For those bits in a that are known, we can propagate them inverted to known bits in v shifted to the right by c. assume(v >=_s c) where c is non-negative: The sign bit of v is zero assume(v >_s c) where c is at least -1: The sign bit of v is zero assume(v <=_s c) where c is negative: The sign bit of v is one assume(v <_s c) where c is non-positive: The sign bit of v is one assume(v <=_u c): Transfer the known high zero bits assume(v <_u c): Transfer the known high zero bits (if c is know to be a power of 2, transfer one more) A small addition to InstCombine was necessary for some of the test cases. The problem is that when InstCombine was simplifying and, or, etc. it would fail to check the 'do I know all of the bits' condition before checking less specific conditions and would not fully constant-fold the result. I'm not sure how to trigger this aside from using assumptions, so I've just included the change here. llvm-svn: 217343
2014-09-08 03:21:07 +08:00
APInt BKnownZero(BitWidth, 0), BKnownOne(BitWidth, 0);
computeKnownBits(B, BKnownZero, BKnownOne, Depth+1, Query(Q, I));
Add additional patterns for @llvm.assume in ValueTracking This builds on r217342, which added the infrastructure to compute known bits using assumptions (@llvm.assume calls). That original commit added only a few patterns (to catch common cases related to determining pointer alignment); this change adds several other patterns for simple cases. r217342 contained that, for assume(v & b = a), bits in the mask that are known to be one, we can propagate known bits from the a to v. It also had a known-bits transfer for assume(a = b). This patch adds: assume(~(v & b) = a) : For those bits in the mask that are known to be one, we can propagate inverted known bits from the a to v. assume(v | b = a) : For those bits in b that are known to be zero, we can propagate known bits from the a to v. assume(~(v | b) = a): For those bits in b that are known to be zero, we can propagate inverted known bits from the a to v. assume(v ^ b = a) : For those bits in b that are known to be zero, we can propagate known bits from the a to v. For those bits in b that are known to be one, we can propagate inverted known bits from the a to v. assume(~(v ^ b) = a) : For those bits in b that are known to be zero, we can propagate inverted known bits from the a to v. For those bits in b that are known to be one, we can propagate known bits from the a to v. assume(v << c = a) : For those bits in a that are known, we can propagate them to known bits in v shifted to the right by c. assume(~(v << c) = a) : For those bits in a that are known, we can propagate them inverted to known bits in v shifted to the right by c. assume(v >> c = a) : For those bits in a that are known, we can propagate them to known bits in v shifted to the right by c. assume(~(v >> c) = a) : For those bits in a that are known, we can propagate them inverted to known bits in v shifted to the right by c. assume(v >=_s c) where c is non-negative: The sign bit of v is zero assume(v >_s c) where c is at least -1: The sign bit of v is zero assume(v <=_s c) where c is negative: The sign bit of v is one assume(v <_s c) where c is non-positive: The sign bit of v is one assume(v <=_u c): Transfer the known high zero bits assume(v <_u c): Transfer the known high zero bits (if c is know to be a power of 2, transfer one more) A small addition to InstCombine was necessary for some of the test cases. The problem is that when InstCombine was simplifying and, or, etc. it would fail to check the 'do I know all of the bits' condition before checking less specific conditions and would not fully constant-fold the result. I'm not sure how to trigger this aside from using assumptions, so I've just included the change here. llvm-svn: 217343
2014-09-08 03:21:07 +08:00
// For those bits in B that are known to be zero, we can propagate known
// bits from the RHS to V.
KnownZero |= RHSKnownZero & BKnownZero;
KnownOne |= RHSKnownOne & BKnownZero;
// assume(~(v | b) = a)
} else if (match(Arg, m_c_ICmp(Pred, m_Not(m_c_Or(m_V, m_Value(B))),
m_Value(A))) &&
Pred == ICmpInst::ICMP_EQ &&
isValidAssumeForContext(I, Q.CxtI, Q.DT)) {
Add additional patterns for @llvm.assume in ValueTracking This builds on r217342, which added the infrastructure to compute known bits using assumptions (@llvm.assume calls). That original commit added only a few patterns (to catch common cases related to determining pointer alignment); this change adds several other patterns for simple cases. r217342 contained that, for assume(v & b = a), bits in the mask that are known to be one, we can propagate known bits from the a to v. It also had a known-bits transfer for assume(a = b). This patch adds: assume(~(v & b) = a) : For those bits in the mask that are known to be one, we can propagate inverted known bits from the a to v. assume(v | b = a) : For those bits in b that are known to be zero, we can propagate known bits from the a to v. assume(~(v | b) = a): For those bits in b that are known to be zero, we can propagate inverted known bits from the a to v. assume(v ^ b = a) : For those bits in b that are known to be zero, we can propagate known bits from the a to v. For those bits in b that are known to be one, we can propagate inverted known bits from the a to v. assume(~(v ^ b) = a) : For those bits in b that are known to be zero, we can propagate inverted known bits from the a to v. For those bits in b that are known to be one, we can propagate known bits from the a to v. assume(v << c = a) : For those bits in a that are known, we can propagate them to known bits in v shifted to the right by c. assume(~(v << c) = a) : For those bits in a that are known, we can propagate them inverted to known bits in v shifted to the right by c. assume(v >> c = a) : For those bits in a that are known, we can propagate them to known bits in v shifted to the right by c. assume(~(v >> c) = a) : For those bits in a that are known, we can propagate them inverted to known bits in v shifted to the right by c. assume(v >=_s c) where c is non-negative: The sign bit of v is zero assume(v >_s c) where c is at least -1: The sign bit of v is zero assume(v <=_s c) where c is negative: The sign bit of v is one assume(v <_s c) where c is non-positive: The sign bit of v is one assume(v <=_u c): Transfer the known high zero bits assume(v <_u c): Transfer the known high zero bits (if c is know to be a power of 2, transfer one more) A small addition to InstCombine was necessary for some of the test cases. The problem is that when InstCombine was simplifying and, or, etc. it would fail to check the 'do I know all of the bits' condition before checking less specific conditions and would not fully constant-fold the result. I'm not sure how to trigger this aside from using assumptions, so I've just included the change here. llvm-svn: 217343
2014-09-08 03:21:07 +08:00
APInt RHSKnownZero(BitWidth, 0), RHSKnownOne(BitWidth, 0);
computeKnownBits(A, RHSKnownZero, RHSKnownOne, Depth+1, Query(Q, I));
Add additional patterns for @llvm.assume in ValueTracking This builds on r217342, which added the infrastructure to compute known bits using assumptions (@llvm.assume calls). That original commit added only a few patterns (to catch common cases related to determining pointer alignment); this change adds several other patterns for simple cases. r217342 contained that, for assume(v & b = a), bits in the mask that are known to be one, we can propagate known bits from the a to v. It also had a known-bits transfer for assume(a = b). This patch adds: assume(~(v & b) = a) : For those bits in the mask that are known to be one, we can propagate inverted known bits from the a to v. assume(v | b = a) : For those bits in b that are known to be zero, we can propagate known bits from the a to v. assume(~(v | b) = a): For those bits in b that are known to be zero, we can propagate inverted known bits from the a to v. assume(v ^ b = a) : For those bits in b that are known to be zero, we can propagate known bits from the a to v. For those bits in b that are known to be one, we can propagate inverted known bits from the a to v. assume(~(v ^ b) = a) : For those bits in b that are known to be zero, we can propagate inverted known bits from the a to v. For those bits in b that are known to be one, we can propagate known bits from the a to v. assume(v << c = a) : For those bits in a that are known, we can propagate them to known bits in v shifted to the right by c. assume(~(v << c) = a) : For those bits in a that are known, we can propagate them inverted to known bits in v shifted to the right by c. assume(v >> c = a) : For those bits in a that are known, we can propagate them to known bits in v shifted to the right by c. assume(~(v >> c) = a) : For those bits in a that are known, we can propagate them inverted to known bits in v shifted to the right by c. assume(v >=_s c) where c is non-negative: The sign bit of v is zero assume(v >_s c) where c is at least -1: The sign bit of v is zero assume(v <=_s c) where c is negative: The sign bit of v is one assume(v <_s c) where c is non-positive: The sign bit of v is one assume(v <=_u c): Transfer the known high zero bits assume(v <_u c): Transfer the known high zero bits (if c is know to be a power of 2, transfer one more) A small addition to InstCombine was necessary for some of the test cases. The problem is that when InstCombine was simplifying and, or, etc. it would fail to check the 'do I know all of the bits' condition before checking less specific conditions and would not fully constant-fold the result. I'm not sure how to trigger this aside from using assumptions, so I've just included the change here. llvm-svn: 217343
2014-09-08 03:21:07 +08:00
APInt BKnownZero(BitWidth, 0), BKnownOne(BitWidth, 0);
computeKnownBits(B, BKnownZero, BKnownOne, Depth+1, Query(Q, I));
Add additional patterns for @llvm.assume in ValueTracking This builds on r217342, which added the infrastructure to compute known bits using assumptions (@llvm.assume calls). That original commit added only a few patterns (to catch common cases related to determining pointer alignment); this change adds several other patterns for simple cases. r217342 contained that, for assume(v & b = a), bits in the mask that are known to be one, we can propagate known bits from the a to v. It also had a known-bits transfer for assume(a = b). This patch adds: assume(~(v & b) = a) : For those bits in the mask that are known to be one, we can propagate inverted known bits from the a to v. assume(v | b = a) : For those bits in b that are known to be zero, we can propagate known bits from the a to v. assume(~(v | b) = a): For those bits in b that are known to be zero, we can propagate inverted known bits from the a to v. assume(v ^ b = a) : For those bits in b that are known to be zero, we can propagate known bits from the a to v. For those bits in b that are known to be one, we can propagate inverted known bits from the a to v. assume(~(v ^ b) = a) : For those bits in b that are known to be zero, we can propagate inverted known bits from the a to v. For those bits in b that are known to be one, we can propagate known bits from the a to v. assume(v << c = a) : For those bits in a that are known, we can propagate them to known bits in v shifted to the right by c. assume(~(v << c) = a) : For those bits in a that are known, we can propagate them inverted to known bits in v shifted to the right by c. assume(v >> c = a) : For those bits in a that are known, we can propagate them to known bits in v shifted to the right by c. assume(~(v >> c) = a) : For those bits in a that are known, we can propagate them inverted to known bits in v shifted to the right by c. assume(v >=_s c) where c is non-negative: The sign bit of v is zero assume(v >_s c) where c is at least -1: The sign bit of v is zero assume(v <=_s c) where c is negative: The sign bit of v is one assume(v <_s c) where c is non-positive: The sign bit of v is one assume(v <=_u c): Transfer the known high zero bits assume(v <_u c): Transfer the known high zero bits (if c is know to be a power of 2, transfer one more) A small addition to InstCombine was necessary for some of the test cases. The problem is that when InstCombine was simplifying and, or, etc. it would fail to check the 'do I know all of the bits' condition before checking less specific conditions and would not fully constant-fold the result. I'm not sure how to trigger this aside from using assumptions, so I've just included the change here. llvm-svn: 217343
2014-09-08 03:21:07 +08:00
// For those bits in B that are known to be zero, we can propagate
// inverted known bits from the RHS to V.
KnownZero |= RHSKnownOne & BKnownZero;
KnownOne |= RHSKnownZero & BKnownZero;
// assume(v ^ b = a)
} else if (match(Arg,
m_c_ICmp(Pred, m_c_Xor(m_V, m_Value(B)), m_Value(A))) &&
Pred == ICmpInst::ICMP_EQ &&
isValidAssumeForContext(I, Q.CxtI, Q.DT)) {
Add additional patterns for @llvm.assume in ValueTracking This builds on r217342, which added the infrastructure to compute known bits using assumptions (@llvm.assume calls). That original commit added only a few patterns (to catch common cases related to determining pointer alignment); this change adds several other patterns for simple cases. r217342 contained that, for assume(v & b = a), bits in the mask that are known to be one, we can propagate known bits from the a to v. It also had a known-bits transfer for assume(a = b). This patch adds: assume(~(v & b) = a) : For those bits in the mask that are known to be one, we can propagate inverted known bits from the a to v. assume(v | b = a) : For those bits in b that are known to be zero, we can propagate known bits from the a to v. assume(~(v | b) = a): For those bits in b that are known to be zero, we can propagate inverted known bits from the a to v. assume(v ^ b = a) : For those bits in b that are known to be zero, we can propagate known bits from the a to v. For those bits in b that are known to be one, we can propagate inverted known bits from the a to v. assume(~(v ^ b) = a) : For those bits in b that are known to be zero, we can propagate inverted known bits from the a to v. For those bits in b that are known to be one, we can propagate known bits from the a to v. assume(v << c = a) : For those bits in a that are known, we can propagate them to known bits in v shifted to the right by c. assume(~(v << c) = a) : For those bits in a that are known, we can propagate them inverted to known bits in v shifted to the right by c. assume(v >> c = a) : For those bits in a that are known, we can propagate them to known bits in v shifted to the right by c. assume(~(v >> c) = a) : For those bits in a that are known, we can propagate them inverted to known bits in v shifted to the right by c. assume(v >=_s c) where c is non-negative: The sign bit of v is zero assume(v >_s c) where c is at least -1: The sign bit of v is zero assume(v <=_s c) where c is negative: The sign bit of v is one assume(v <_s c) where c is non-positive: The sign bit of v is one assume(v <=_u c): Transfer the known high zero bits assume(v <_u c): Transfer the known high zero bits (if c is know to be a power of 2, transfer one more) A small addition to InstCombine was necessary for some of the test cases. The problem is that when InstCombine was simplifying and, or, etc. it would fail to check the 'do I know all of the bits' condition before checking less specific conditions and would not fully constant-fold the result. I'm not sure how to trigger this aside from using assumptions, so I've just included the change here. llvm-svn: 217343
2014-09-08 03:21:07 +08:00
APInt RHSKnownZero(BitWidth, 0), RHSKnownOne(BitWidth, 0);
computeKnownBits(A, RHSKnownZero, RHSKnownOne, Depth+1, Query(Q, I));
Add additional patterns for @llvm.assume in ValueTracking This builds on r217342, which added the infrastructure to compute known bits using assumptions (@llvm.assume calls). That original commit added only a few patterns (to catch common cases related to determining pointer alignment); this change adds several other patterns for simple cases. r217342 contained that, for assume(v & b = a), bits in the mask that are known to be one, we can propagate known bits from the a to v. It also had a known-bits transfer for assume(a = b). This patch adds: assume(~(v & b) = a) : For those bits in the mask that are known to be one, we can propagate inverted known bits from the a to v. assume(v | b = a) : For those bits in b that are known to be zero, we can propagate known bits from the a to v. assume(~(v | b) = a): For those bits in b that are known to be zero, we can propagate inverted known bits from the a to v. assume(v ^ b = a) : For those bits in b that are known to be zero, we can propagate known bits from the a to v. For those bits in b that are known to be one, we can propagate inverted known bits from the a to v. assume(~(v ^ b) = a) : For those bits in b that are known to be zero, we can propagate inverted known bits from the a to v. For those bits in b that are known to be one, we can propagate known bits from the a to v. assume(v << c = a) : For those bits in a that are known, we can propagate them to known bits in v shifted to the right by c. assume(~(v << c) = a) : For those bits in a that are known, we can propagate them inverted to known bits in v shifted to the right by c. assume(v >> c = a) : For those bits in a that are known, we can propagate them to known bits in v shifted to the right by c. assume(~(v >> c) = a) : For those bits in a that are known, we can propagate them inverted to known bits in v shifted to the right by c. assume(v >=_s c) where c is non-negative: The sign bit of v is zero assume(v >_s c) where c is at least -1: The sign bit of v is zero assume(v <=_s c) where c is negative: The sign bit of v is one assume(v <_s c) where c is non-positive: The sign bit of v is one assume(v <=_u c): Transfer the known high zero bits assume(v <_u c): Transfer the known high zero bits (if c is know to be a power of 2, transfer one more) A small addition to InstCombine was necessary for some of the test cases. The problem is that when InstCombine was simplifying and, or, etc. it would fail to check the 'do I know all of the bits' condition before checking less specific conditions and would not fully constant-fold the result. I'm not sure how to trigger this aside from using assumptions, so I've just included the change here. llvm-svn: 217343
2014-09-08 03:21:07 +08:00
APInt BKnownZero(BitWidth, 0), BKnownOne(BitWidth, 0);
computeKnownBits(B, BKnownZero, BKnownOne, Depth+1, Query(Q, I));
Add additional patterns for @llvm.assume in ValueTracking This builds on r217342, which added the infrastructure to compute known bits using assumptions (@llvm.assume calls). That original commit added only a few patterns (to catch common cases related to determining pointer alignment); this change adds several other patterns for simple cases. r217342 contained that, for assume(v & b = a), bits in the mask that are known to be one, we can propagate known bits from the a to v. It also had a known-bits transfer for assume(a = b). This patch adds: assume(~(v & b) = a) : For those bits in the mask that are known to be one, we can propagate inverted known bits from the a to v. assume(v | b = a) : For those bits in b that are known to be zero, we can propagate known bits from the a to v. assume(~(v | b) = a): For those bits in b that are known to be zero, we can propagate inverted known bits from the a to v. assume(v ^ b = a) : For those bits in b that are known to be zero, we can propagate known bits from the a to v. For those bits in b that are known to be one, we can propagate inverted known bits from the a to v. assume(~(v ^ b) = a) : For those bits in b that are known to be zero, we can propagate inverted known bits from the a to v. For those bits in b that are known to be one, we can propagate known bits from the a to v. assume(v << c = a) : For those bits in a that are known, we can propagate them to known bits in v shifted to the right by c. assume(~(v << c) = a) : For those bits in a that are known, we can propagate them inverted to known bits in v shifted to the right by c. assume(v >> c = a) : For those bits in a that are known, we can propagate them to known bits in v shifted to the right by c. assume(~(v >> c) = a) : For those bits in a that are known, we can propagate them inverted to known bits in v shifted to the right by c. assume(v >=_s c) where c is non-negative: The sign bit of v is zero assume(v >_s c) where c is at least -1: The sign bit of v is zero assume(v <=_s c) where c is negative: The sign bit of v is one assume(v <_s c) where c is non-positive: The sign bit of v is one assume(v <=_u c): Transfer the known high zero bits assume(v <_u c): Transfer the known high zero bits (if c is know to be a power of 2, transfer one more) A small addition to InstCombine was necessary for some of the test cases. The problem is that when InstCombine was simplifying and, or, etc. it would fail to check the 'do I know all of the bits' condition before checking less specific conditions and would not fully constant-fold the result. I'm not sure how to trigger this aside from using assumptions, so I've just included the change here. llvm-svn: 217343
2014-09-08 03:21:07 +08:00
// For those bits in B that are known to be zero, we can propagate known
// bits from the RHS to V. For those bits in B that are known to be one,
// we can propagate inverted known bits from the RHS to V.
KnownZero |= RHSKnownZero & BKnownZero;
KnownOne |= RHSKnownOne & BKnownZero;
KnownZero |= RHSKnownOne & BKnownOne;
KnownOne |= RHSKnownZero & BKnownOne;
// assume(~(v ^ b) = a)
} else if (match(Arg, m_c_ICmp(Pred, m_Not(m_c_Xor(m_V, m_Value(B))),
m_Value(A))) &&
Pred == ICmpInst::ICMP_EQ &&
isValidAssumeForContext(I, Q.CxtI, Q.DT)) {
Add additional patterns for @llvm.assume in ValueTracking This builds on r217342, which added the infrastructure to compute known bits using assumptions (@llvm.assume calls). That original commit added only a few patterns (to catch common cases related to determining pointer alignment); this change adds several other patterns for simple cases. r217342 contained that, for assume(v & b = a), bits in the mask that are known to be one, we can propagate known bits from the a to v. It also had a known-bits transfer for assume(a = b). This patch adds: assume(~(v & b) = a) : For those bits in the mask that are known to be one, we can propagate inverted known bits from the a to v. assume(v | b = a) : For those bits in b that are known to be zero, we can propagate known bits from the a to v. assume(~(v | b) = a): For those bits in b that are known to be zero, we can propagate inverted known bits from the a to v. assume(v ^ b = a) : For those bits in b that are known to be zero, we can propagate known bits from the a to v. For those bits in b that are known to be one, we can propagate inverted known bits from the a to v. assume(~(v ^ b) = a) : For those bits in b that are known to be zero, we can propagate inverted known bits from the a to v. For those bits in b that are known to be one, we can propagate known bits from the a to v. assume(v << c = a) : For those bits in a that are known, we can propagate them to known bits in v shifted to the right by c. assume(~(v << c) = a) : For those bits in a that are known, we can propagate them inverted to known bits in v shifted to the right by c. assume(v >> c = a) : For those bits in a that are known, we can propagate them to known bits in v shifted to the right by c. assume(~(v >> c) = a) : For those bits in a that are known, we can propagate them inverted to known bits in v shifted to the right by c. assume(v >=_s c) where c is non-negative: The sign bit of v is zero assume(v >_s c) where c is at least -1: The sign bit of v is zero assume(v <=_s c) where c is negative: The sign bit of v is one assume(v <_s c) where c is non-positive: The sign bit of v is one assume(v <=_u c): Transfer the known high zero bits assume(v <_u c): Transfer the known high zero bits (if c is know to be a power of 2, transfer one more) A small addition to InstCombine was necessary for some of the test cases. The problem is that when InstCombine was simplifying and, or, etc. it would fail to check the 'do I know all of the bits' condition before checking less specific conditions and would not fully constant-fold the result. I'm not sure how to trigger this aside from using assumptions, so I've just included the change here. llvm-svn: 217343
2014-09-08 03:21:07 +08:00
APInt RHSKnownZero(BitWidth, 0), RHSKnownOne(BitWidth, 0);
computeKnownBits(A, RHSKnownZero, RHSKnownOne, Depth+1, Query(Q, I));
Add additional patterns for @llvm.assume in ValueTracking This builds on r217342, which added the infrastructure to compute known bits using assumptions (@llvm.assume calls). That original commit added only a few patterns (to catch common cases related to determining pointer alignment); this change adds several other patterns for simple cases. r217342 contained that, for assume(v & b = a), bits in the mask that are known to be one, we can propagate known bits from the a to v. It also had a known-bits transfer for assume(a = b). This patch adds: assume(~(v & b) = a) : For those bits in the mask that are known to be one, we can propagate inverted known bits from the a to v. assume(v | b = a) : For those bits in b that are known to be zero, we can propagate known bits from the a to v. assume(~(v | b) = a): For those bits in b that are known to be zero, we can propagate inverted known bits from the a to v. assume(v ^ b = a) : For those bits in b that are known to be zero, we can propagate known bits from the a to v. For those bits in b that are known to be one, we can propagate inverted known bits from the a to v. assume(~(v ^ b) = a) : For those bits in b that are known to be zero, we can propagate inverted known bits from the a to v. For those bits in b that are known to be one, we can propagate known bits from the a to v. assume(v << c = a) : For those bits in a that are known, we can propagate them to known bits in v shifted to the right by c. assume(~(v << c) = a) : For those bits in a that are known, we can propagate them inverted to known bits in v shifted to the right by c. assume(v >> c = a) : For those bits in a that are known, we can propagate them to known bits in v shifted to the right by c. assume(~(v >> c) = a) : For those bits in a that are known, we can propagate them inverted to known bits in v shifted to the right by c. assume(v >=_s c) where c is non-negative: The sign bit of v is zero assume(v >_s c) where c is at least -1: The sign bit of v is zero assume(v <=_s c) where c is negative: The sign bit of v is one assume(v <_s c) where c is non-positive: The sign bit of v is one assume(v <=_u c): Transfer the known high zero bits assume(v <_u c): Transfer the known high zero bits (if c is know to be a power of 2, transfer one more) A small addition to InstCombine was necessary for some of the test cases. The problem is that when InstCombine was simplifying and, or, etc. it would fail to check the 'do I know all of the bits' condition before checking less specific conditions and would not fully constant-fold the result. I'm not sure how to trigger this aside from using assumptions, so I've just included the change here. llvm-svn: 217343
2014-09-08 03:21:07 +08:00
APInt BKnownZero(BitWidth, 0), BKnownOne(BitWidth, 0);
computeKnownBits(B, BKnownZero, BKnownOne, Depth+1, Query(Q, I));
Add additional patterns for @llvm.assume in ValueTracking This builds on r217342, which added the infrastructure to compute known bits using assumptions (@llvm.assume calls). That original commit added only a few patterns (to catch common cases related to determining pointer alignment); this change adds several other patterns for simple cases. r217342 contained that, for assume(v & b = a), bits in the mask that are known to be one, we can propagate known bits from the a to v. It also had a known-bits transfer for assume(a = b). This patch adds: assume(~(v & b) = a) : For those bits in the mask that are known to be one, we can propagate inverted known bits from the a to v. assume(v | b = a) : For those bits in b that are known to be zero, we can propagate known bits from the a to v. assume(~(v | b) = a): For those bits in b that are known to be zero, we can propagate inverted known bits from the a to v. assume(v ^ b = a) : For those bits in b that are known to be zero, we can propagate known bits from the a to v. For those bits in b that are known to be one, we can propagate inverted known bits from the a to v. assume(~(v ^ b) = a) : For those bits in b that are known to be zero, we can propagate inverted known bits from the a to v. For those bits in b that are known to be one, we can propagate known bits from the a to v. assume(v << c = a) : For those bits in a that are known, we can propagate them to known bits in v shifted to the right by c. assume(~(v << c) = a) : For those bits in a that are known, we can propagate them inverted to known bits in v shifted to the right by c. assume(v >> c = a) : For those bits in a that are known, we can propagate them to known bits in v shifted to the right by c. assume(~(v >> c) = a) : For those bits in a that are known, we can propagate them inverted to known bits in v shifted to the right by c. assume(v >=_s c) where c is non-negative: The sign bit of v is zero assume(v >_s c) where c is at least -1: The sign bit of v is zero assume(v <=_s c) where c is negative: The sign bit of v is one assume(v <_s c) where c is non-positive: The sign bit of v is one assume(v <=_u c): Transfer the known high zero bits assume(v <_u c): Transfer the known high zero bits (if c is know to be a power of 2, transfer one more) A small addition to InstCombine was necessary for some of the test cases. The problem is that when InstCombine was simplifying and, or, etc. it would fail to check the 'do I know all of the bits' condition before checking less specific conditions and would not fully constant-fold the result. I'm not sure how to trigger this aside from using assumptions, so I've just included the change here. llvm-svn: 217343
2014-09-08 03:21:07 +08:00
// For those bits in B that are known to be zero, we can propagate
// inverted known bits from the RHS to V. For those bits in B that are
// known to be one, we can propagate known bits from the RHS to V.
KnownZero |= RHSKnownOne & BKnownZero;
KnownOne |= RHSKnownZero & BKnownZero;
KnownZero |= RHSKnownZero & BKnownOne;
KnownOne |= RHSKnownOne & BKnownOne;
// assume(v << c = a)
} else if (match(Arg, m_c_ICmp(Pred, m_Shl(m_V, m_ConstantInt(C)),
m_Value(A))) &&
Pred == ICmpInst::ICMP_EQ &&
isValidAssumeForContext(I, Q.CxtI, Q.DT)) {
Add additional patterns for @llvm.assume in ValueTracking This builds on r217342, which added the infrastructure to compute known bits using assumptions (@llvm.assume calls). That original commit added only a few patterns (to catch common cases related to determining pointer alignment); this change adds several other patterns for simple cases. r217342 contained that, for assume(v & b = a), bits in the mask that are known to be one, we can propagate known bits from the a to v. It also had a known-bits transfer for assume(a = b). This patch adds: assume(~(v & b) = a) : For those bits in the mask that are known to be one, we can propagate inverted known bits from the a to v. assume(v | b = a) : For those bits in b that are known to be zero, we can propagate known bits from the a to v. assume(~(v | b) = a): For those bits in b that are known to be zero, we can propagate inverted known bits from the a to v. assume(v ^ b = a) : For those bits in b that are known to be zero, we can propagate known bits from the a to v. For those bits in b that are known to be one, we can propagate inverted known bits from the a to v. assume(~(v ^ b) = a) : For those bits in b that are known to be zero, we can propagate inverted known bits from the a to v. For those bits in b that are known to be one, we can propagate known bits from the a to v. assume(v << c = a) : For those bits in a that are known, we can propagate them to known bits in v shifted to the right by c. assume(~(v << c) = a) : For those bits in a that are known, we can propagate them inverted to known bits in v shifted to the right by c. assume(v >> c = a) : For those bits in a that are known, we can propagate them to known bits in v shifted to the right by c. assume(~(v >> c) = a) : For those bits in a that are known, we can propagate them inverted to known bits in v shifted to the right by c. assume(v >=_s c) where c is non-negative: The sign bit of v is zero assume(v >_s c) where c is at least -1: The sign bit of v is zero assume(v <=_s c) where c is negative: The sign bit of v is one assume(v <_s c) where c is non-positive: The sign bit of v is one assume(v <=_u c): Transfer the known high zero bits assume(v <_u c): Transfer the known high zero bits (if c is know to be a power of 2, transfer one more) A small addition to InstCombine was necessary for some of the test cases. The problem is that when InstCombine was simplifying and, or, etc. it would fail to check the 'do I know all of the bits' condition before checking less specific conditions and would not fully constant-fold the result. I'm not sure how to trigger this aside from using assumptions, so I've just included the change here. llvm-svn: 217343
2014-09-08 03:21:07 +08:00
APInt RHSKnownZero(BitWidth, 0), RHSKnownOne(BitWidth, 0);
computeKnownBits(A, RHSKnownZero, RHSKnownOne, Depth+1, Query(Q, I));
Add additional patterns for @llvm.assume in ValueTracking This builds on r217342, which added the infrastructure to compute known bits using assumptions (@llvm.assume calls). That original commit added only a few patterns (to catch common cases related to determining pointer alignment); this change adds several other patterns for simple cases. r217342 contained that, for assume(v & b = a), bits in the mask that are known to be one, we can propagate known bits from the a to v. It also had a known-bits transfer for assume(a = b). This patch adds: assume(~(v & b) = a) : For those bits in the mask that are known to be one, we can propagate inverted known bits from the a to v. assume(v | b = a) : For those bits in b that are known to be zero, we can propagate known bits from the a to v. assume(~(v | b) = a): For those bits in b that are known to be zero, we can propagate inverted known bits from the a to v. assume(v ^ b = a) : For those bits in b that are known to be zero, we can propagate known bits from the a to v. For those bits in b that are known to be one, we can propagate inverted known bits from the a to v. assume(~(v ^ b) = a) : For those bits in b that are known to be zero, we can propagate inverted known bits from the a to v. For those bits in b that are known to be one, we can propagate known bits from the a to v. assume(v << c = a) : For those bits in a that are known, we can propagate them to known bits in v shifted to the right by c. assume(~(v << c) = a) : For those bits in a that are known, we can propagate them inverted to known bits in v shifted to the right by c. assume(v >> c = a) : For those bits in a that are known, we can propagate them to known bits in v shifted to the right by c. assume(~(v >> c) = a) : For those bits in a that are known, we can propagate them inverted to known bits in v shifted to the right by c. assume(v >=_s c) where c is non-negative: The sign bit of v is zero assume(v >_s c) where c is at least -1: The sign bit of v is zero assume(v <=_s c) where c is negative: The sign bit of v is one assume(v <_s c) where c is non-positive: The sign bit of v is one assume(v <=_u c): Transfer the known high zero bits assume(v <_u c): Transfer the known high zero bits (if c is know to be a power of 2, transfer one more) A small addition to InstCombine was necessary for some of the test cases. The problem is that when InstCombine was simplifying and, or, etc. it would fail to check the 'do I know all of the bits' condition before checking less specific conditions and would not fully constant-fold the result. I'm not sure how to trigger this aside from using assumptions, so I've just included the change here. llvm-svn: 217343
2014-09-08 03:21:07 +08:00
// For those bits in RHS that are known, we can propagate them to known
// bits in V shifted to the right by C.
KnownZero |= RHSKnownZero.lshr(C->getZExtValue());
KnownOne |= RHSKnownOne.lshr(C->getZExtValue());
// assume(~(v << c) = a)
} else if (match(Arg, m_c_ICmp(Pred, m_Not(m_Shl(m_V, m_ConstantInt(C))),
m_Value(A))) &&
Pred == ICmpInst::ICMP_EQ &&
isValidAssumeForContext(I, Q.CxtI, Q.DT)) {
Add additional patterns for @llvm.assume in ValueTracking This builds on r217342, which added the infrastructure to compute known bits using assumptions (@llvm.assume calls). That original commit added only a few patterns (to catch common cases related to determining pointer alignment); this change adds several other patterns for simple cases. r217342 contained that, for assume(v & b = a), bits in the mask that are known to be one, we can propagate known bits from the a to v. It also had a known-bits transfer for assume(a = b). This patch adds: assume(~(v & b) = a) : For those bits in the mask that are known to be one, we can propagate inverted known bits from the a to v. assume(v | b = a) : For those bits in b that are known to be zero, we can propagate known bits from the a to v. assume(~(v | b) = a): For those bits in b that are known to be zero, we can propagate inverted known bits from the a to v. assume(v ^ b = a) : For those bits in b that are known to be zero, we can propagate known bits from the a to v. For those bits in b that are known to be one, we can propagate inverted known bits from the a to v. assume(~(v ^ b) = a) : For those bits in b that are known to be zero, we can propagate inverted known bits from the a to v. For those bits in b that are known to be one, we can propagate known bits from the a to v. assume(v << c = a) : For those bits in a that are known, we can propagate them to known bits in v shifted to the right by c. assume(~(v << c) = a) : For those bits in a that are known, we can propagate them inverted to known bits in v shifted to the right by c. assume(v >> c = a) : For those bits in a that are known, we can propagate them to known bits in v shifted to the right by c. assume(~(v >> c) = a) : For those bits in a that are known, we can propagate them inverted to known bits in v shifted to the right by c. assume(v >=_s c) where c is non-negative: The sign bit of v is zero assume(v >_s c) where c is at least -1: The sign bit of v is zero assume(v <=_s c) where c is negative: The sign bit of v is one assume(v <_s c) where c is non-positive: The sign bit of v is one assume(v <=_u c): Transfer the known high zero bits assume(v <_u c): Transfer the known high zero bits (if c is know to be a power of 2, transfer one more) A small addition to InstCombine was necessary for some of the test cases. The problem is that when InstCombine was simplifying and, or, etc. it would fail to check the 'do I know all of the bits' condition before checking less specific conditions and would not fully constant-fold the result. I'm not sure how to trigger this aside from using assumptions, so I've just included the change here. llvm-svn: 217343
2014-09-08 03:21:07 +08:00
APInt RHSKnownZero(BitWidth, 0), RHSKnownOne(BitWidth, 0);
computeKnownBits(A, RHSKnownZero, RHSKnownOne, Depth+1, Query(Q, I));
Add additional patterns for @llvm.assume in ValueTracking This builds on r217342, which added the infrastructure to compute known bits using assumptions (@llvm.assume calls). That original commit added only a few patterns (to catch common cases related to determining pointer alignment); this change adds several other patterns for simple cases. r217342 contained that, for assume(v & b = a), bits in the mask that are known to be one, we can propagate known bits from the a to v. It also had a known-bits transfer for assume(a = b). This patch adds: assume(~(v & b) = a) : For those bits in the mask that are known to be one, we can propagate inverted known bits from the a to v. assume(v | b = a) : For those bits in b that are known to be zero, we can propagate known bits from the a to v. assume(~(v | b) = a): For those bits in b that are known to be zero, we can propagate inverted known bits from the a to v. assume(v ^ b = a) : For those bits in b that are known to be zero, we can propagate known bits from the a to v. For those bits in b that are known to be one, we can propagate inverted known bits from the a to v. assume(~(v ^ b) = a) : For those bits in b that are known to be zero, we can propagate inverted known bits from the a to v. For those bits in b that are known to be one, we can propagate known bits from the a to v. assume(v << c = a) : For those bits in a that are known, we can propagate them to known bits in v shifted to the right by c. assume(~(v << c) = a) : For those bits in a that are known, we can propagate them inverted to known bits in v shifted to the right by c. assume(v >> c = a) : For those bits in a that are known, we can propagate them to known bits in v shifted to the right by c. assume(~(v >> c) = a) : For those bits in a that are known, we can propagate them inverted to known bits in v shifted to the right by c. assume(v >=_s c) where c is non-negative: The sign bit of v is zero assume(v >_s c) where c is at least -1: The sign bit of v is zero assume(v <=_s c) where c is negative: The sign bit of v is one assume(v <_s c) where c is non-positive: The sign bit of v is one assume(v <=_u c): Transfer the known high zero bits assume(v <_u c): Transfer the known high zero bits (if c is know to be a power of 2, transfer one more) A small addition to InstCombine was necessary for some of the test cases. The problem is that when InstCombine was simplifying and, or, etc. it would fail to check the 'do I know all of the bits' condition before checking less specific conditions and would not fully constant-fold the result. I'm not sure how to trigger this aside from using assumptions, so I've just included the change here. llvm-svn: 217343
2014-09-08 03:21:07 +08:00
// For those bits in RHS that are known, we can propagate them inverted
// to known bits in V shifted to the right by C.
KnownZero |= RHSKnownOne.lshr(C->getZExtValue());
KnownOne |= RHSKnownZero.lshr(C->getZExtValue());
// assume(v >> c = a)
} else if (match(Arg,
m_c_ICmp(Pred, m_CombineOr(m_LShr(m_V, m_ConstantInt(C)),
m_AShr(m_V, m_ConstantInt(C))),
m_Value(A))) &&
Pred == ICmpInst::ICMP_EQ &&
isValidAssumeForContext(I, Q.CxtI, Q.DT)) {
Add additional patterns for @llvm.assume in ValueTracking This builds on r217342, which added the infrastructure to compute known bits using assumptions (@llvm.assume calls). That original commit added only a few patterns (to catch common cases related to determining pointer alignment); this change adds several other patterns for simple cases. r217342 contained that, for assume(v & b = a), bits in the mask that are known to be one, we can propagate known bits from the a to v. It also had a known-bits transfer for assume(a = b). This patch adds: assume(~(v & b) = a) : For those bits in the mask that are known to be one, we can propagate inverted known bits from the a to v. assume(v | b = a) : For those bits in b that are known to be zero, we can propagate known bits from the a to v. assume(~(v | b) = a): For those bits in b that are known to be zero, we can propagate inverted known bits from the a to v. assume(v ^ b = a) : For those bits in b that are known to be zero, we can propagate known bits from the a to v. For those bits in b that are known to be one, we can propagate inverted known bits from the a to v. assume(~(v ^ b) = a) : For those bits in b that are known to be zero, we can propagate inverted known bits from the a to v. For those bits in b that are known to be one, we can propagate known bits from the a to v. assume(v << c = a) : For those bits in a that are known, we can propagate them to known bits in v shifted to the right by c. assume(~(v << c) = a) : For those bits in a that are known, we can propagate them inverted to known bits in v shifted to the right by c. assume(v >> c = a) : For those bits in a that are known, we can propagate them to known bits in v shifted to the right by c. assume(~(v >> c) = a) : For those bits in a that are known, we can propagate them inverted to known bits in v shifted to the right by c. assume(v >=_s c) where c is non-negative: The sign bit of v is zero assume(v >_s c) where c is at least -1: The sign bit of v is zero assume(v <=_s c) where c is negative: The sign bit of v is one assume(v <_s c) where c is non-positive: The sign bit of v is one assume(v <=_u c): Transfer the known high zero bits assume(v <_u c): Transfer the known high zero bits (if c is know to be a power of 2, transfer one more) A small addition to InstCombine was necessary for some of the test cases. The problem is that when InstCombine was simplifying and, or, etc. it would fail to check the 'do I know all of the bits' condition before checking less specific conditions and would not fully constant-fold the result. I'm not sure how to trigger this aside from using assumptions, so I've just included the change here. llvm-svn: 217343
2014-09-08 03:21:07 +08:00
APInt RHSKnownZero(BitWidth, 0), RHSKnownOne(BitWidth, 0);
computeKnownBits(A, RHSKnownZero, RHSKnownOne, Depth+1, Query(Q, I));
Add additional patterns for @llvm.assume in ValueTracking This builds on r217342, which added the infrastructure to compute known bits using assumptions (@llvm.assume calls). That original commit added only a few patterns (to catch common cases related to determining pointer alignment); this change adds several other patterns for simple cases. r217342 contained that, for assume(v & b = a), bits in the mask that are known to be one, we can propagate known bits from the a to v. It also had a known-bits transfer for assume(a = b). This patch adds: assume(~(v & b) = a) : For those bits in the mask that are known to be one, we can propagate inverted known bits from the a to v. assume(v | b = a) : For those bits in b that are known to be zero, we can propagate known bits from the a to v. assume(~(v | b) = a): For those bits in b that are known to be zero, we can propagate inverted known bits from the a to v. assume(v ^ b = a) : For those bits in b that are known to be zero, we can propagate known bits from the a to v. For those bits in b that are known to be one, we can propagate inverted known bits from the a to v. assume(~(v ^ b) = a) : For those bits in b that are known to be zero, we can propagate inverted known bits from the a to v. For those bits in b that are known to be one, we can propagate known bits from the a to v. assume(v << c = a) : For those bits in a that are known, we can propagate them to known bits in v shifted to the right by c. assume(~(v << c) = a) : For those bits in a that are known, we can propagate them inverted to known bits in v shifted to the right by c. assume(v >> c = a) : For those bits in a that are known, we can propagate them to known bits in v shifted to the right by c. assume(~(v >> c) = a) : For those bits in a that are known, we can propagate them inverted to known bits in v shifted to the right by c. assume(v >=_s c) where c is non-negative: The sign bit of v is zero assume(v >_s c) where c is at least -1: The sign bit of v is zero assume(v <=_s c) where c is negative: The sign bit of v is one assume(v <_s c) where c is non-positive: The sign bit of v is one assume(v <=_u c): Transfer the known high zero bits assume(v <_u c): Transfer the known high zero bits (if c is know to be a power of 2, transfer one more) A small addition to InstCombine was necessary for some of the test cases. The problem is that when InstCombine was simplifying and, or, etc. it would fail to check the 'do I know all of the bits' condition before checking less specific conditions and would not fully constant-fold the result. I'm not sure how to trigger this aside from using assumptions, so I've just included the change here. llvm-svn: 217343
2014-09-08 03:21:07 +08:00
// For those bits in RHS that are known, we can propagate them to known
// bits in V shifted to the right by C.
KnownZero |= RHSKnownZero << C->getZExtValue();
KnownOne |= RHSKnownOne << C->getZExtValue();
// assume(~(v >> c) = a)
} else if (match(Arg, m_c_ICmp(Pred, m_Not(m_CombineOr(
m_LShr(m_V, m_ConstantInt(C)),
m_AShr(m_V, m_ConstantInt(C)))),
m_Value(A))) &&
Pred == ICmpInst::ICMP_EQ &&
isValidAssumeForContext(I, Q.CxtI, Q.DT)) {
Add additional patterns for @llvm.assume in ValueTracking This builds on r217342, which added the infrastructure to compute known bits using assumptions (@llvm.assume calls). That original commit added only a few patterns (to catch common cases related to determining pointer alignment); this change adds several other patterns for simple cases. r217342 contained that, for assume(v & b = a), bits in the mask that are known to be one, we can propagate known bits from the a to v. It also had a known-bits transfer for assume(a = b). This patch adds: assume(~(v & b) = a) : For those bits in the mask that are known to be one, we can propagate inverted known bits from the a to v. assume(v | b = a) : For those bits in b that are known to be zero, we can propagate known bits from the a to v. assume(~(v | b) = a): For those bits in b that are known to be zero, we can propagate inverted known bits from the a to v. assume(v ^ b = a) : For those bits in b that are known to be zero, we can propagate known bits from the a to v. For those bits in b that are known to be one, we can propagate inverted known bits from the a to v. assume(~(v ^ b) = a) : For those bits in b that are known to be zero, we can propagate inverted known bits from the a to v. For those bits in b that are known to be one, we can propagate known bits from the a to v. assume(v << c = a) : For those bits in a that are known, we can propagate them to known bits in v shifted to the right by c. assume(~(v << c) = a) : For those bits in a that are known, we can propagate them inverted to known bits in v shifted to the right by c. assume(v >> c = a) : For those bits in a that are known, we can propagate them to known bits in v shifted to the right by c. assume(~(v >> c) = a) : For those bits in a that are known, we can propagate them inverted to known bits in v shifted to the right by c. assume(v >=_s c) where c is non-negative: The sign bit of v is zero assume(v >_s c) where c is at least -1: The sign bit of v is zero assume(v <=_s c) where c is negative: The sign bit of v is one assume(v <_s c) where c is non-positive: The sign bit of v is one assume(v <=_u c): Transfer the known high zero bits assume(v <_u c): Transfer the known high zero bits (if c is know to be a power of 2, transfer one more) A small addition to InstCombine was necessary for some of the test cases. The problem is that when InstCombine was simplifying and, or, etc. it would fail to check the 'do I know all of the bits' condition before checking less specific conditions and would not fully constant-fold the result. I'm not sure how to trigger this aside from using assumptions, so I've just included the change here. llvm-svn: 217343
2014-09-08 03:21:07 +08:00
APInt RHSKnownZero(BitWidth, 0), RHSKnownOne(BitWidth, 0);
computeKnownBits(A, RHSKnownZero, RHSKnownOne, Depth+1, Query(Q, I));
Add additional patterns for @llvm.assume in ValueTracking This builds on r217342, which added the infrastructure to compute known bits using assumptions (@llvm.assume calls). That original commit added only a few patterns (to catch common cases related to determining pointer alignment); this change adds several other patterns for simple cases. r217342 contained that, for assume(v & b = a), bits in the mask that are known to be one, we can propagate known bits from the a to v. It also had a known-bits transfer for assume(a = b). This patch adds: assume(~(v & b) = a) : For those bits in the mask that are known to be one, we can propagate inverted known bits from the a to v. assume(v | b = a) : For those bits in b that are known to be zero, we can propagate known bits from the a to v. assume(~(v | b) = a): For those bits in b that are known to be zero, we can propagate inverted known bits from the a to v. assume(v ^ b = a) : For those bits in b that are known to be zero, we can propagate known bits from the a to v. For those bits in b that are known to be one, we can propagate inverted known bits from the a to v. assume(~(v ^ b) = a) : For those bits in b that are known to be zero, we can propagate inverted known bits from the a to v. For those bits in b that are known to be one, we can propagate known bits from the a to v. assume(v << c = a) : For those bits in a that are known, we can propagate them to known bits in v shifted to the right by c. assume(~(v << c) = a) : For those bits in a that are known, we can propagate them inverted to known bits in v shifted to the right by c. assume(v >> c = a) : For those bits in a that are known, we can propagate them to known bits in v shifted to the right by c. assume(~(v >> c) = a) : For those bits in a that are known, we can propagate them inverted to known bits in v shifted to the right by c. assume(v >=_s c) where c is non-negative: The sign bit of v is zero assume(v >_s c) where c is at least -1: The sign bit of v is zero assume(v <=_s c) where c is negative: The sign bit of v is one assume(v <_s c) where c is non-positive: The sign bit of v is one assume(v <=_u c): Transfer the known high zero bits assume(v <_u c): Transfer the known high zero bits (if c is know to be a power of 2, transfer one more) A small addition to InstCombine was necessary for some of the test cases. The problem is that when InstCombine was simplifying and, or, etc. it would fail to check the 'do I know all of the bits' condition before checking less specific conditions and would not fully constant-fold the result. I'm not sure how to trigger this aside from using assumptions, so I've just included the change here. llvm-svn: 217343
2014-09-08 03:21:07 +08:00
// For those bits in RHS that are known, we can propagate them inverted
// to known bits in V shifted to the right by C.
KnownZero |= RHSKnownOne << C->getZExtValue();
KnownOne |= RHSKnownZero << C->getZExtValue();
// assume(v >=_s c) where c is non-negative
} else if (match(Arg, m_ICmp(Pred, m_V, m_Value(A))) &&
Pred == ICmpInst::ICMP_SGE &&
isValidAssumeForContext(I, Q.CxtI, Q.DT)) {
Add additional patterns for @llvm.assume in ValueTracking This builds on r217342, which added the infrastructure to compute known bits using assumptions (@llvm.assume calls). That original commit added only a few patterns (to catch common cases related to determining pointer alignment); this change adds several other patterns for simple cases. r217342 contained that, for assume(v & b = a), bits in the mask that are known to be one, we can propagate known bits from the a to v. It also had a known-bits transfer for assume(a = b). This patch adds: assume(~(v & b) = a) : For those bits in the mask that are known to be one, we can propagate inverted known bits from the a to v. assume(v | b = a) : For those bits in b that are known to be zero, we can propagate known bits from the a to v. assume(~(v | b) = a): For those bits in b that are known to be zero, we can propagate inverted known bits from the a to v. assume(v ^ b = a) : For those bits in b that are known to be zero, we can propagate known bits from the a to v. For those bits in b that are known to be one, we can propagate inverted known bits from the a to v. assume(~(v ^ b) = a) : For those bits in b that are known to be zero, we can propagate inverted known bits from the a to v. For those bits in b that are known to be one, we can propagate known bits from the a to v. assume(v << c = a) : For those bits in a that are known, we can propagate them to known bits in v shifted to the right by c. assume(~(v << c) = a) : For those bits in a that are known, we can propagate them inverted to known bits in v shifted to the right by c. assume(v >> c = a) : For those bits in a that are known, we can propagate them to known bits in v shifted to the right by c. assume(~(v >> c) = a) : For those bits in a that are known, we can propagate them inverted to known bits in v shifted to the right by c. assume(v >=_s c) where c is non-negative: The sign bit of v is zero assume(v >_s c) where c is at least -1: The sign bit of v is zero assume(v <=_s c) where c is negative: The sign bit of v is one assume(v <_s c) where c is non-positive: The sign bit of v is one assume(v <=_u c): Transfer the known high zero bits assume(v <_u c): Transfer the known high zero bits (if c is know to be a power of 2, transfer one more) A small addition to InstCombine was necessary for some of the test cases. The problem is that when InstCombine was simplifying and, or, etc. it would fail to check the 'do I know all of the bits' condition before checking less specific conditions and would not fully constant-fold the result. I'm not sure how to trigger this aside from using assumptions, so I've just included the change here. llvm-svn: 217343
2014-09-08 03:21:07 +08:00
APInt RHSKnownZero(BitWidth, 0), RHSKnownOne(BitWidth, 0);
computeKnownBits(A, RHSKnownZero, RHSKnownOne, Depth+1, Query(Q, I));
Add additional patterns for @llvm.assume in ValueTracking This builds on r217342, which added the infrastructure to compute known bits using assumptions (@llvm.assume calls). That original commit added only a few patterns (to catch common cases related to determining pointer alignment); this change adds several other patterns for simple cases. r217342 contained that, for assume(v & b = a), bits in the mask that are known to be one, we can propagate known bits from the a to v. It also had a known-bits transfer for assume(a = b). This patch adds: assume(~(v & b) = a) : For those bits in the mask that are known to be one, we can propagate inverted known bits from the a to v. assume(v | b = a) : For those bits in b that are known to be zero, we can propagate known bits from the a to v. assume(~(v | b) = a): For those bits in b that are known to be zero, we can propagate inverted known bits from the a to v. assume(v ^ b = a) : For those bits in b that are known to be zero, we can propagate known bits from the a to v. For those bits in b that are known to be one, we can propagate inverted known bits from the a to v. assume(~(v ^ b) = a) : For those bits in b that are known to be zero, we can propagate inverted known bits from the a to v. For those bits in b that are known to be one, we can propagate known bits from the a to v. assume(v << c = a) : For those bits in a that are known, we can propagate them to known bits in v shifted to the right by c. assume(~(v << c) = a) : For those bits in a that are known, we can propagate them inverted to known bits in v shifted to the right by c. assume(v >> c = a) : For those bits in a that are known, we can propagate them to known bits in v shifted to the right by c. assume(~(v >> c) = a) : For those bits in a that are known, we can propagate them inverted to known bits in v shifted to the right by c. assume(v >=_s c) where c is non-negative: The sign bit of v is zero assume(v >_s c) where c is at least -1: The sign bit of v is zero assume(v <=_s c) where c is negative: The sign bit of v is one assume(v <_s c) where c is non-positive: The sign bit of v is one assume(v <=_u c): Transfer the known high zero bits assume(v <_u c): Transfer the known high zero bits (if c is know to be a power of 2, transfer one more) A small addition to InstCombine was necessary for some of the test cases. The problem is that when InstCombine was simplifying and, or, etc. it would fail to check the 'do I know all of the bits' condition before checking less specific conditions and would not fully constant-fold the result. I'm not sure how to trigger this aside from using assumptions, so I've just included the change here. llvm-svn: 217343
2014-09-08 03:21:07 +08:00
if (RHSKnownZero.isNegative()) {
// We know that the sign bit is zero.
KnownZero.setSignBit();
Add additional patterns for @llvm.assume in ValueTracking This builds on r217342, which added the infrastructure to compute known bits using assumptions (@llvm.assume calls). That original commit added only a few patterns (to catch common cases related to determining pointer alignment); this change adds several other patterns for simple cases. r217342 contained that, for assume(v & b = a), bits in the mask that are known to be one, we can propagate known bits from the a to v. It also had a known-bits transfer for assume(a = b). This patch adds: assume(~(v & b) = a) : For those bits in the mask that are known to be one, we can propagate inverted known bits from the a to v. assume(v | b = a) : For those bits in b that are known to be zero, we can propagate known bits from the a to v. assume(~(v | b) = a): For those bits in b that are known to be zero, we can propagate inverted known bits from the a to v. assume(v ^ b = a) : For those bits in b that are known to be zero, we can propagate known bits from the a to v. For those bits in b that are known to be one, we can propagate inverted known bits from the a to v. assume(~(v ^ b) = a) : For those bits in b that are known to be zero, we can propagate inverted known bits from the a to v. For those bits in b that are known to be one, we can propagate known bits from the a to v. assume(v << c = a) : For those bits in a that are known, we can propagate them to known bits in v shifted to the right by c. assume(~(v << c) = a) : For those bits in a that are known, we can propagate them inverted to known bits in v shifted to the right by c. assume(v >> c = a) : For those bits in a that are known, we can propagate them to known bits in v shifted to the right by c. assume(~(v >> c) = a) : For those bits in a that are known, we can propagate them inverted to known bits in v shifted to the right by c. assume(v >=_s c) where c is non-negative: The sign bit of v is zero assume(v >_s c) where c is at least -1: The sign bit of v is zero assume(v <=_s c) where c is negative: The sign bit of v is one assume(v <_s c) where c is non-positive: The sign bit of v is one assume(v <=_u c): Transfer the known high zero bits assume(v <_u c): Transfer the known high zero bits (if c is know to be a power of 2, transfer one more) A small addition to InstCombine was necessary for some of the test cases. The problem is that when InstCombine was simplifying and, or, etc. it would fail to check the 'do I know all of the bits' condition before checking less specific conditions and would not fully constant-fold the result. I'm not sure how to trigger this aside from using assumptions, so I've just included the change here. llvm-svn: 217343
2014-09-08 03:21:07 +08:00
}
// assume(v >_s c) where c is at least -1.
} else if (match(Arg, m_ICmp(Pred, m_V, m_Value(A))) &&
Pred == ICmpInst::ICMP_SGT &&
isValidAssumeForContext(I, Q.CxtI, Q.DT)) {
Add additional patterns for @llvm.assume in ValueTracking This builds on r217342, which added the infrastructure to compute known bits using assumptions (@llvm.assume calls). That original commit added only a few patterns (to catch common cases related to determining pointer alignment); this change adds several other patterns for simple cases. r217342 contained that, for assume(v & b = a), bits in the mask that are known to be one, we can propagate known bits from the a to v. It also had a known-bits transfer for assume(a = b). This patch adds: assume(~(v & b) = a) : For those bits in the mask that are known to be one, we can propagate inverted known bits from the a to v. assume(v | b = a) : For those bits in b that are known to be zero, we can propagate known bits from the a to v. assume(~(v | b) = a): For those bits in b that are known to be zero, we can propagate inverted known bits from the a to v. assume(v ^ b = a) : For those bits in b that are known to be zero, we can propagate known bits from the a to v. For those bits in b that are known to be one, we can propagate inverted known bits from the a to v. assume(~(v ^ b) = a) : For those bits in b that are known to be zero, we can propagate inverted known bits from the a to v. For those bits in b that are known to be one, we can propagate known bits from the a to v. assume(v << c = a) : For those bits in a that are known, we can propagate them to known bits in v shifted to the right by c. assume(~(v << c) = a) : For those bits in a that are known, we can propagate them inverted to known bits in v shifted to the right by c. assume(v >> c = a) : For those bits in a that are known, we can propagate them to known bits in v shifted to the right by c. assume(~(v >> c) = a) : For those bits in a that are known, we can propagate them inverted to known bits in v shifted to the right by c. assume(v >=_s c) where c is non-negative: The sign bit of v is zero assume(v >_s c) where c is at least -1: The sign bit of v is zero assume(v <=_s c) where c is negative: The sign bit of v is one assume(v <_s c) where c is non-positive: The sign bit of v is one assume(v <=_u c): Transfer the known high zero bits assume(v <_u c): Transfer the known high zero bits (if c is know to be a power of 2, transfer one more) A small addition to InstCombine was necessary for some of the test cases. The problem is that when InstCombine was simplifying and, or, etc. it would fail to check the 'do I know all of the bits' condition before checking less specific conditions and would not fully constant-fold the result. I'm not sure how to trigger this aside from using assumptions, so I've just included the change here. llvm-svn: 217343
2014-09-08 03:21:07 +08:00
APInt RHSKnownZero(BitWidth, 0), RHSKnownOne(BitWidth, 0);
computeKnownBits(A, RHSKnownZero, RHSKnownOne, Depth+1, Query(Q, I));
Add additional patterns for @llvm.assume in ValueTracking This builds on r217342, which added the infrastructure to compute known bits using assumptions (@llvm.assume calls). That original commit added only a few patterns (to catch common cases related to determining pointer alignment); this change adds several other patterns for simple cases. r217342 contained that, for assume(v & b = a), bits in the mask that are known to be one, we can propagate known bits from the a to v. It also had a known-bits transfer for assume(a = b). This patch adds: assume(~(v & b) = a) : For those bits in the mask that are known to be one, we can propagate inverted known bits from the a to v. assume(v | b = a) : For those bits in b that are known to be zero, we can propagate known bits from the a to v. assume(~(v | b) = a): For those bits in b that are known to be zero, we can propagate inverted known bits from the a to v. assume(v ^ b = a) : For those bits in b that are known to be zero, we can propagate known bits from the a to v. For those bits in b that are known to be one, we can propagate inverted known bits from the a to v. assume(~(v ^ b) = a) : For those bits in b that are known to be zero, we can propagate inverted known bits from the a to v. For those bits in b that are known to be one, we can propagate known bits from the a to v. assume(v << c = a) : For those bits in a that are known, we can propagate them to known bits in v shifted to the right by c. assume(~(v << c) = a) : For those bits in a that are known, we can propagate them inverted to known bits in v shifted to the right by c. assume(v >> c = a) : For those bits in a that are known, we can propagate them to known bits in v shifted to the right by c. assume(~(v >> c) = a) : For those bits in a that are known, we can propagate them inverted to known bits in v shifted to the right by c. assume(v >=_s c) where c is non-negative: The sign bit of v is zero assume(v >_s c) where c is at least -1: The sign bit of v is zero assume(v <=_s c) where c is negative: The sign bit of v is one assume(v <_s c) where c is non-positive: The sign bit of v is one assume(v <=_u c): Transfer the known high zero bits assume(v <_u c): Transfer the known high zero bits (if c is know to be a power of 2, transfer one more) A small addition to InstCombine was necessary for some of the test cases. The problem is that when InstCombine was simplifying and, or, etc. it would fail to check the 'do I know all of the bits' condition before checking less specific conditions and would not fully constant-fold the result. I'm not sure how to trigger this aside from using assumptions, so I've just included the change here. llvm-svn: 217343
2014-09-08 03:21:07 +08:00
if (RHSKnownOne.isAllOnesValue() || RHSKnownZero.isNegative()) {
// We know that the sign bit is zero.
KnownZero.setSignBit();
Add additional patterns for @llvm.assume in ValueTracking This builds on r217342, which added the infrastructure to compute known bits using assumptions (@llvm.assume calls). That original commit added only a few patterns (to catch common cases related to determining pointer alignment); this change adds several other patterns for simple cases. r217342 contained that, for assume(v & b = a), bits in the mask that are known to be one, we can propagate known bits from the a to v. It also had a known-bits transfer for assume(a = b). This patch adds: assume(~(v & b) = a) : For those bits in the mask that are known to be one, we can propagate inverted known bits from the a to v. assume(v | b = a) : For those bits in b that are known to be zero, we can propagate known bits from the a to v. assume(~(v | b) = a): For those bits in b that are known to be zero, we can propagate inverted known bits from the a to v. assume(v ^ b = a) : For those bits in b that are known to be zero, we can propagate known bits from the a to v. For those bits in b that are known to be one, we can propagate inverted known bits from the a to v. assume(~(v ^ b) = a) : For those bits in b that are known to be zero, we can propagate inverted known bits from the a to v. For those bits in b that are known to be one, we can propagate known bits from the a to v. assume(v << c = a) : For those bits in a that are known, we can propagate them to known bits in v shifted to the right by c. assume(~(v << c) = a) : For those bits in a that are known, we can propagate them inverted to known bits in v shifted to the right by c. assume(v >> c = a) : For those bits in a that are known, we can propagate them to known bits in v shifted to the right by c. assume(~(v >> c) = a) : For those bits in a that are known, we can propagate them inverted to known bits in v shifted to the right by c. assume(v >=_s c) where c is non-negative: The sign bit of v is zero assume(v >_s c) where c is at least -1: The sign bit of v is zero assume(v <=_s c) where c is negative: The sign bit of v is one assume(v <_s c) where c is non-positive: The sign bit of v is one assume(v <=_u c): Transfer the known high zero bits assume(v <_u c): Transfer the known high zero bits (if c is know to be a power of 2, transfer one more) A small addition to InstCombine was necessary for some of the test cases. The problem is that when InstCombine was simplifying and, or, etc. it would fail to check the 'do I know all of the bits' condition before checking less specific conditions and would not fully constant-fold the result. I'm not sure how to trigger this aside from using assumptions, so I've just included the change here. llvm-svn: 217343
2014-09-08 03:21:07 +08:00
}
// assume(v <=_s c) where c is negative
} else if (match(Arg, m_ICmp(Pred, m_V, m_Value(A))) &&
Pred == ICmpInst::ICMP_SLE &&
isValidAssumeForContext(I, Q.CxtI, Q.DT)) {
Add additional patterns for @llvm.assume in ValueTracking This builds on r217342, which added the infrastructure to compute known bits using assumptions (@llvm.assume calls). That original commit added only a few patterns (to catch common cases related to determining pointer alignment); this change adds several other patterns for simple cases. r217342 contained that, for assume(v & b = a), bits in the mask that are known to be one, we can propagate known bits from the a to v. It also had a known-bits transfer for assume(a = b). This patch adds: assume(~(v & b) = a) : For those bits in the mask that are known to be one, we can propagate inverted known bits from the a to v. assume(v | b = a) : For those bits in b that are known to be zero, we can propagate known bits from the a to v. assume(~(v | b) = a): For those bits in b that are known to be zero, we can propagate inverted known bits from the a to v. assume(v ^ b = a) : For those bits in b that are known to be zero, we can propagate known bits from the a to v. For those bits in b that are known to be one, we can propagate inverted known bits from the a to v. assume(~(v ^ b) = a) : For those bits in b that are known to be zero, we can propagate inverted known bits from the a to v. For those bits in b that are known to be one, we can propagate known bits from the a to v. assume(v << c = a) : For those bits in a that are known, we can propagate them to known bits in v shifted to the right by c. assume(~(v << c) = a) : For those bits in a that are known, we can propagate them inverted to known bits in v shifted to the right by c. assume(v >> c = a) : For those bits in a that are known, we can propagate them to known bits in v shifted to the right by c. assume(~(v >> c) = a) : For those bits in a that are known, we can propagate them inverted to known bits in v shifted to the right by c. assume(v >=_s c) where c is non-negative: The sign bit of v is zero assume(v >_s c) where c is at least -1: The sign bit of v is zero assume(v <=_s c) where c is negative: The sign bit of v is one assume(v <_s c) where c is non-positive: The sign bit of v is one assume(v <=_u c): Transfer the known high zero bits assume(v <_u c): Transfer the known high zero bits (if c is know to be a power of 2, transfer one more) A small addition to InstCombine was necessary for some of the test cases. The problem is that when InstCombine was simplifying and, or, etc. it would fail to check the 'do I know all of the bits' condition before checking less specific conditions and would not fully constant-fold the result. I'm not sure how to trigger this aside from using assumptions, so I've just included the change here. llvm-svn: 217343
2014-09-08 03:21:07 +08:00
APInt RHSKnownZero(BitWidth, 0), RHSKnownOne(BitWidth, 0);
computeKnownBits(A, RHSKnownZero, RHSKnownOne, Depth+1, Query(Q, I));
Add additional patterns for @llvm.assume in ValueTracking This builds on r217342, which added the infrastructure to compute known bits using assumptions (@llvm.assume calls). That original commit added only a few patterns (to catch common cases related to determining pointer alignment); this change adds several other patterns for simple cases. r217342 contained that, for assume(v & b = a), bits in the mask that are known to be one, we can propagate known bits from the a to v. It also had a known-bits transfer for assume(a = b). This patch adds: assume(~(v & b) = a) : For those bits in the mask that are known to be one, we can propagate inverted known bits from the a to v. assume(v | b = a) : For those bits in b that are known to be zero, we can propagate known bits from the a to v. assume(~(v | b) = a): For those bits in b that are known to be zero, we can propagate inverted known bits from the a to v. assume(v ^ b = a) : For those bits in b that are known to be zero, we can propagate known bits from the a to v. For those bits in b that are known to be one, we can propagate inverted known bits from the a to v. assume(~(v ^ b) = a) : For those bits in b that are known to be zero, we can propagate inverted known bits from the a to v. For those bits in b that are known to be one, we can propagate known bits from the a to v. assume(v << c = a) : For those bits in a that are known, we can propagate them to known bits in v shifted to the right by c. assume(~(v << c) = a) : For those bits in a that are known, we can propagate them inverted to known bits in v shifted to the right by c. assume(v >> c = a) : For those bits in a that are known, we can propagate them to known bits in v shifted to the right by c. assume(~(v >> c) = a) : For those bits in a that are known, we can propagate them inverted to known bits in v shifted to the right by c. assume(v >=_s c) where c is non-negative: The sign bit of v is zero assume(v >_s c) where c is at least -1: The sign bit of v is zero assume(v <=_s c) where c is negative: The sign bit of v is one assume(v <_s c) where c is non-positive: The sign bit of v is one assume(v <=_u c): Transfer the known high zero bits assume(v <_u c): Transfer the known high zero bits (if c is know to be a power of 2, transfer one more) A small addition to InstCombine was necessary for some of the test cases. The problem is that when InstCombine was simplifying and, or, etc. it would fail to check the 'do I know all of the bits' condition before checking less specific conditions and would not fully constant-fold the result. I'm not sure how to trigger this aside from using assumptions, so I've just included the change here. llvm-svn: 217343
2014-09-08 03:21:07 +08:00
if (RHSKnownOne.isNegative()) {
// We know that the sign bit is one.
KnownOne.setSignBit();
Add additional patterns for @llvm.assume in ValueTracking This builds on r217342, which added the infrastructure to compute known bits using assumptions (@llvm.assume calls). That original commit added only a few patterns (to catch common cases related to determining pointer alignment); this change adds several other patterns for simple cases. r217342 contained that, for assume(v & b = a), bits in the mask that are known to be one, we can propagate known bits from the a to v. It also had a known-bits transfer for assume(a = b). This patch adds: assume(~(v & b) = a) : For those bits in the mask that are known to be one, we can propagate inverted known bits from the a to v. assume(v | b = a) : For those bits in b that are known to be zero, we can propagate known bits from the a to v. assume(~(v | b) = a): For those bits in b that are known to be zero, we can propagate inverted known bits from the a to v. assume(v ^ b = a) : For those bits in b that are known to be zero, we can propagate known bits from the a to v. For those bits in b that are known to be one, we can propagate inverted known bits from the a to v. assume(~(v ^ b) = a) : For those bits in b that are known to be zero, we can propagate inverted known bits from the a to v. For those bits in b that are known to be one, we can propagate known bits from the a to v. assume(v << c = a) : For those bits in a that are known, we can propagate them to known bits in v shifted to the right by c. assume(~(v << c) = a) : For those bits in a that are known, we can propagate them inverted to known bits in v shifted to the right by c. assume(v >> c = a) : For those bits in a that are known, we can propagate them to known bits in v shifted to the right by c. assume(~(v >> c) = a) : For those bits in a that are known, we can propagate them inverted to known bits in v shifted to the right by c. assume(v >=_s c) where c is non-negative: The sign bit of v is zero assume(v >_s c) where c is at least -1: The sign bit of v is zero assume(v <=_s c) where c is negative: The sign bit of v is one assume(v <_s c) where c is non-positive: The sign bit of v is one assume(v <=_u c): Transfer the known high zero bits assume(v <_u c): Transfer the known high zero bits (if c is know to be a power of 2, transfer one more) A small addition to InstCombine was necessary for some of the test cases. The problem is that when InstCombine was simplifying and, or, etc. it would fail to check the 'do I know all of the bits' condition before checking less specific conditions and would not fully constant-fold the result. I'm not sure how to trigger this aside from using assumptions, so I've just included the change here. llvm-svn: 217343
2014-09-08 03:21:07 +08:00
}
// assume(v <_s c) where c is non-positive
} else if (match(Arg, m_ICmp(Pred, m_V, m_Value(A))) &&
Pred == ICmpInst::ICMP_SLT &&
isValidAssumeForContext(I, Q.CxtI, Q.DT)) {
Add additional patterns for @llvm.assume in ValueTracking This builds on r217342, which added the infrastructure to compute known bits using assumptions (@llvm.assume calls). That original commit added only a few patterns (to catch common cases related to determining pointer alignment); this change adds several other patterns for simple cases. r217342 contained that, for assume(v & b = a), bits in the mask that are known to be one, we can propagate known bits from the a to v. It also had a known-bits transfer for assume(a = b). This patch adds: assume(~(v & b) = a) : For those bits in the mask that are known to be one, we can propagate inverted known bits from the a to v. assume(v | b = a) : For those bits in b that are known to be zero, we can propagate known bits from the a to v. assume(~(v | b) = a): For those bits in b that are known to be zero, we can propagate inverted known bits from the a to v. assume(v ^ b = a) : For those bits in b that are known to be zero, we can propagate known bits from the a to v. For those bits in b that are known to be one, we can propagate inverted known bits from the a to v. assume(~(v ^ b) = a) : For those bits in b that are known to be zero, we can propagate inverted known bits from the a to v. For those bits in b that are known to be one, we can propagate known bits from the a to v. assume(v << c = a) : For those bits in a that are known, we can propagate them to known bits in v shifted to the right by c. assume(~(v << c) = a) : For those bits in a that are known, we can propagate them inverted to known bits in v shifted to the right by c. assume(v >> c = a) : For those bits in a that are known, we can propagate them to known bits in v shifted to the right by c. assume(~(v >> c) = a) : For those bits in a that are known, we can propagate them inverted to known bits in v shifted to the right by c. assume(v >=_s c) where c is non-negative: The sign bit of v is zero assume(v >_s c) where c is at least -1: The sign bit of v is zero assume(v <=_s c) where c is negative: The sign bit of v is one assume(v <_s c) where c is non-positive: The sign bit of v is one assume(v <=_u c): Transfer the known high zero bits assume(v <_u c): Transfer the known high zero bits (if c is know to be a power of 2, transfer one more) A small addition to InstCombine was necessary for some of the test cases. The problem is that when InstCombine was simplifying and, or, etc. it would fail to check the 'do I know all of the bits' condition before checking less specific conditions and would not fully constant-fold the result. I'm not sure how to trigger this aside from using assumptions, so I've just included the change here. llvm-svn: 217343
2014-09-08 03:21:07 +08:00
APInt RHSKnownZero(BitWidth, 0), RHSKnownOne(BitWidth, 0);
computeKnownBits(A, RHSKnownZero, RHSKnownOne, Depth+1, Query(Q, I));
Add additional patterns for @llvm.assume in ValueTracking This builds on r217342, which added the infrastructure to compute known bits using assumptions (@llvm.assume calls). That original commit added only a few patterns (to catch common cases related to determining pointer alignment); this change adds several other patterns for simple cases. r217342 contained that, for assume(v & b = a), bits in the mask that are known to be one, we can propagate known bits from the a to v. It also had a known-bits transfer for assume(a = b). This patch adds: assume(~(v & b) = a) : For those bits in the mask that are known to be one, we can propagate inverted known bits from the a to v. assume(v | b = a) : For those bits in b that are known to be zero, we can propagate known bits from the a to v. assume(~(v | b) = a): For those bits in b that are known to be zero, we can propagate inverted known bits from the a to v. assume(v ^ b = a) : For those bits in b that are known to be zero, we can propagate known bits from the a to v. For those bits in b that are known to be one, we can propagate inverted known bits from the a to v. assume(~(v ^ b) = a) : For those bits in b that are known to be zero, we can propagate inverted known bits from the a to v. For those bits in b that are known to be one, we can propagate known bits from the a to v. assume(v << c = a) : For those bits in a that are known, we can propagate them to known bits in v shifted to the right by c. assume(~(v << c) = a) : For those bits in a that are known, we can propagate them inverted to known bits in v shifted to the right by c. assume(v >> c = a) : For those bits in a that are known, we can propagate them to known bits in v shifted to the right by c. assume(~(v >> c) = a) : For those bits in a that are known, we can propagate them inverted to known bits in v shifted to the right by c. assume(v >=_s c) where c is non-negative: The sign bit of v is zero assume(v >_s c) where c is at least -1: The sign bit of v is zero assume(v <=_s c) where c is negative: The sign bit of v is one assume(v <_s c) where c is non-positive: The sign bit of v is one assume(v <=_u c): Transfer the known high zero bits assume(v <_u c): Transfer the known high zero bits (if c is know to be a power of 2, transfer one more) A small addition to InstCombine was necessary for some of the test cases. The problem is that when InstCombine was simplifying and, or, etc. it would fail to check the 'do I know all of the bits' condition before checking less specific conditions and would not fully constant-fold the result. I'm not sure how to trigger this aside from using assumptions, so I've just included the change here. llvm-svn: 217343
2014-09-08 03:21:07 +08:00
if (RHSKnownZero.isAllOnesValue() || RHSKnownOne.isNegative()) {
// We know that the sign bit is one.
KnownOne.setSignBit();
Add additional patterns for @llvm.assume in ValueTracking This builds on r217342, which added the infrastructure to compute known bits using assumptions (@llvm.assume calls). That original commit added only a few patterns (to catch common cases related to determining pointer alignment); this change adds several other patterns for simple cases. r217342 contained that, for assume(v & b = a), bits in the mask that are known to be one, we can propagate known bits from the a to v. It also had a known-bits transfer for assume(a = b). This patch adds: assume(~(v & b) = a) : For those bits in the mask that are known to be one, we can propagate inverted known bits from the a to v. assume(v | b = a) : For those bits in b that are known to be zero, we can propagate known bits from the a to v. assume(~(v | b) = a): For those bits in b that are known to be zero, we can propagate inverted known bits from the a to v. assume(v ^ b = a) : For those bits in b that are known to be zero, we can propagate known bits from the a to v. For those bits in b that are known to be one, we can propagate inverted known bits from the a to v. assume(~(v ^ b) = a) : For those bits in b that are known to be zero, we can propagate inverted known bits from the a to v. For those bits in b that are known to be one, we can propagate known bits from the a to v. assume(v << c = a) : For those bits in a that are known, we can propagate them to known bits in v shifted to the right by c. assume(~(v << c) = a) : For those bits in a that are known, we can propagate them inverted to known bits in v shifted to the right by c. assume(v >> c = a) : For those bits in a that are known, we can propagate them to known bits in v shifted to the right by c. assume(~(v >> c) = a) : For those bits in a that are known, we can propagate them inverted to known bits in v shifted to the right by c. assume(v >=_s c) where c is non-negative: The sign bit of v is zero assume(v >_s c) where c is at least -1: The sign bit of v is zero assume(v <=_s c) where c is negative: The sign bit of v is one assume(v <_s c) where c is non-positive: The sign bit of v is one assume(v <=_u c): Transfer the known high zero bits assume(v <_u c): Transfer the known high zero bits (if c is know to be a power of 2, transfer one more) A small addition to InstCombine was necessary for some of the test cases. The problem is that when InstCombine was simplifying and, or, etc. it would fail to check the 'do I know all of the bits' condition before checking less specific conditions and would not fully constant-fold the result. I'm not sure how to trigger this aside from using assumptions, so I've just included the change here. llvm-svn: 217343
2014-09-08 03:21:07 +08:00
}
// assume(v <=_u c)
} else if (match(Arg, m_ICmp(Pred, m_V, m_Value(A))) &&
Pred == ICmpInst::ICMP_ULE &&
isValidAssumeForContext(I, Q.CxtI, Q.DT)) {
Add additional patterns for @llvm.assume in ValueTracking This builds on r217342, which added the infrastructure to compute known bits using assumptions (@llvm.assume calls). That original commit added only a few patterns (to catch common cases related to determining pointer alignment); this change adds several other patterns for simple cases. r217342 contained that, for assume(v & b = a), bits in the mask that are known to be one, we can propagate known bits from the a to v. It also had a known-bits transfer for assume(a = b). This patch adds: assume(~(v & b) = a) : For those bits in the mask that are known to be one, we can propagate inverted known bits from the a to v. assume(v | b = a) : For those bits in b that are known to be zero, we can propagate known bits from the a to v. assume(~(v | b) = a): For those bits in b that are known to be zero, we can propagate inverted known bits from the a to v. assume(v ^ b = a) : For those bits in b that are known to be zero, we can propagate known bits from the a to v. For those bits in b that are known to be one, we can propagate inverted known bits from the a to v. assume(~(v ^ b) = a) : For those bits in b that are known to be zero, we can propagate inverted known bits from the a to v. For those bits in b that are known to be one, we can propagate known bits from the a to v. assume(v << c = a) : For those bits in a that are known, we can propagate them to known bits in v shifted to the right by c. assume(~(v << c) = a) : For those bits in a that are known, we can propagate them inverted to known bits in v shifted to the right by c. assume(v >> c = a) : For those bits in a that are known, we can propagate them to known bits in v shifted to the right by c. assume(~(v >> c) = a) : For those bits in a that are known, we can propagate them inverted to known bits in v shifted to the right by c. assume(v >=_s c) where c is non-negative: The sign bit of v is zero assume(v >_s c) where c is at least -1: The sign bit of v is zero assume(v <=_s c) where c is negative: The sign bit of v is one assume(v <_s c) where c is non-positive: The sign bit of v is one assume(v <=_u c): Transfer the known high zero bits assume(v <_u c): Transfer the known high zero bits (if c is know to be a power of 2, transfer one more) A small addition to InstCombine was necessary for some of the test cases. The problem is that when InstCombine was simplifying and, or, etc. it would fail to check the 'do I know all of the bits' condition before checking less specific conditions and would not fully constant-fold the result. I'm not sure how to trigger this aside from using assumptions, so I've just included the change here. llvm-svn: 217343
2014-09-08 03:21:07 +08:00
APInt RHSKnownZero(BitWidth, 0), RHSKnownOne(BitWidth, 0);
computeKnownBits(A, RHSKnownZero, RHSKnownOne, Depth+1, Query(Q, I));
Add additional patterns for @llvm.assume in ValueTracking This builds on r217342, which added the infrastructure to compute known bits using assumptions (@llvm.assume calls). That original commit added only a few patterns (to catch common cases related to determining pointer alignment); this change adds several other patterns for simple cases. r217342 contained that, for assume(v & b = a), bits in the mask that are known to be one, we can propagate known bits from the a to v. It also had a known-bits transfer for assume(a = b). This patch adds: assume(~(v & b) = a) : For those bits in the mask that are known to be one, we can propagate inverted known bits from the a to v. assume(v | b = a) : For those bits in b that are known to be zero, we can propagate known bits from the a to v. assume(~(v | b) = a): For those bits in b that are known to be zero, we can propagate inverted known bits from the a to v. assume(v ^ b = a) : For those bits in b that are known to be zero, we can propagate known bits from the a to v. For those bits in b that are known to be one, we can propagate inverted known bits from the a to v. assume(~(v ^ b) = a) : For those bits in b that are known to be zero, we can propagate inverted known bits from the a to v. For those bits in b that are known to be one, we can propagate known bits from the a to v. assume(v << c = a) : For those bits in a that are known, we can propagate them to known bits in v shifted to the right by c. assume(~(v << c) = a) : For those bits in a that are known, we can propagate them inverted to known bits in v shifted to the right by c. assume(v >> c = a) : For those bits in a that are known, we can propagate them to known bits in v shifted to the right by c. assume(~(v >> c) = a) : For those bits in a that are known, we can propagate them inverted to known bits in v shifted to the right by c. assume(v >=_s c) where c is non-negative: The sign bit of v is zero assume(v >_s c) where c is at least -1: The sign bit of v is zero assume(v <=_s c) where c is negative: The sign bit of v is one assume(v <_s c) where c is non-positive: The sign bit of v is one assume(v <=_u c): Transfer the known high zero bits assume(v <_u c): Transfer the known high zero bits (if c is know to be a power of 2, transfer one more) A small addition to InstCombine was necessary for some of the test cases. The problem is that when InstCombine was simplifying and, or, etc. it would fail to check the 'do I know all of the bits' condition before checking less specific conditions and would not fully constant-fold the result. I'm not sure how to trigger this aside from using assumptions, so I've just included the change here. llvm-svn: 217343
2014-09-08 03:21:07 +08:00
// Whatever high bits in c are zero are known to be zero.
KnownZero.setHighBits(RHSKnownZero.countLeadingOnes());
Add additional patterns for @llvm.assume in ValueTracking This builds on r217342, which added the infrastructure to compute known bits using assumptions (@llvm.assume calls). That original commit added only a few patterns (to catch common cases related to determining pointer alignment); this change adds several other patterns for simple cases. r217342 contained that, for assume(v & b = a), bits in the mask that are known to be one, we can propagate known bits from the a to v. It also had a known-bits transfer for assume(a = b). This patch adds: assume(~(v & b) = a) : For those bits in the mask that are known to be one, we can propagate inverted known bits from the a to v. assume(v | b = a) : For those bits in b that are known to be zero, we can propagate known bits from the a to v. assume(~(v | b) = a): For those bits in b that are known to be zero, we can propagate inverted known bits from the a to v. assume(v ^ b = a) : For those bits in b that are known to be zero, we can propagate known bits from the a to v. For those bits in b that are known to be one, we can propagate inverted known bits from the a to v. assume(~(v ^ b) = a) : For those bits in b that are known to be zero, we can propagate inverted known bits from the a to v. For those bits in b that are known to be one, we can propagate known bits from the a to v. assume(v << c = a) : For those bits in a that are known, we can propagate them to known bits in v shifted to the right by c. assume(~(v << c) = a) : For those bits in a that are known, we can propagate them inverted to known bits in v shifted to the right by c. assume(v >> c = a) : For those bits in a that are known, we can propagate them to known bits in v shifted to the right by c. assume(~(v >> c) = a) : For those bits in a that are known, we can propagate them inverted to known bits in v shifted to the right by c. assume(v >=_s c) where c is non-negative: The sign bit of v is zero assume(v >_s c) where c is at least -1: The sign bit of v is zero assume(v <=_s c) where c is negative: The sign bit of v is one assume(v <_s c) where c is non-positive: The sign bit of v is one assume(v <=_u c): Transfer the known high zero bits assume(v <_u c): Transfer the known high zero bits (if c is know to be a power of 2, transfer one more) A small addition to InstCombine was necessary for some of the test cases. The problem is that when InstCombine was simplifying and, or, etc. it would fail to check the 'do I know all of the bits' condition before checking less specific conditions and would not fully constant-fold the result. I'm not sure how to trigger this aside from using assumptions, so I've just included the change here. llvm-svn: 217343
2014-09-08 03:21:07 +08:00
// assume(v <_u c)
} else if (match(Arg, m_ICmp(Pred, m_V, m_Value(A))) &&
Pred == ICmpInst::ICMP_ULT &&
isValidAssumeForContext(I, Q.CxtI, Q.DT)) {
Add additional patterns for @llvm.assume in ValueTracking This builds on r217342, which added the infrastructure to compute known bits using assumptions (@llvm.assume calls). That original commit added only a few patterns (to catch common cases related to determining pointer alignment); this change adds several other patterns for simple cases. r217342 contained that, for assume(v & b = a), bits in the mask that are known to be one, we can propagate known bits from the a to v. It also had a known-bits transfer for assume(a = b). This patch adds: assume(~(v & b) = a) : For those bits in the mask that are known to be one, we can propagate inverted known bits from the a to v. assume(v | b = a) : For those bits in b that are known to be zero, we can propagate known bits from the a to v. assume(~(v | b) = a): For those bits in b that are known to be zero, we can propagate inverted known bits from the a to v. assume(v ^ b = a) : For those bits in b that are known to be zero, we can propagate known bits from the a to v. For those bits in b that are known to be one, we can propagate inverted known bits from the a to v. assume(~(v ^ b) = a) : For those bits in b that are known to be zero, we can propagate inverted known bits from the a to v. For those bits in b that are known to be one, we can propagate known bits from the a to v. assume(v << c = a) : For those bits in a that are known, we can propagate them to known bits in v shifted to the right by c. assume(~(v << c) = a) : For those bits in a that are known, we can propagate them inverted to known bits in v shifted to the right by c. assume(v >> c = a) : For those bits in a that are known, we can propagate them to known bits in v shifted to the right by c. assume(~(v >> c) = a) : For those bits in a that are known, we can propagate them inverted to known bits in v shifted to the right by c. assume(v >=_s c) where c is non-negative: The sign bit of v is zero assume(v >_s c) where c is at least -1: The sign bit of v is zero assume(v <=_s c) where c is negative: The sign bit of v is one assume(v <_s c) where c is non-positive: The sign bit of v is one assume(v <=_u c): Transfer the known high zero bits assume(v <_u c): Transfer the known high zero bits (if c is know to be a power of 2, transfer one more) A small addition to InstCombine was necessary for some of the test cases. The problem is that when InstCombine was simplifying and, or, etc. it would fail to check the 'do I know all of the bits' condition before checking less specific conditions and would not fully constant-fold the result. I'm not sure how to trigger this aside from using assumptions, so I've just included the change here. llvm-svn: 217343
2014-09-08 03:21:07 +08:00
APInt RHSKnownZero(BitWidth, 0), RHSKnownOne(BitWidth, 0);
computeKnownBits(A, RHSKnownZero, RHSKnownOne, Depth+1, Query(Q, I));
Add additional patterns for @llvm.assume in ValueTracking This builds on r217342, which added the infrastructure to compute known bits using assumptions (@llvm.assume calls). That original commit added only a few patterns (to catch common cases related to determining pointer alignment); this change adds several other patterns for simple cases. r217342 contained that, for assume(v & b = a), bits in the mask that are known to be one, we can propagate known bits from the a to v. It also had a known-bits transfer for assume(a = b). This patch adds: assume(~(v & b) = a) : For those bits in the mask that are known to be one, we can propagate inverted known bits from the a to v. assume(v | b = a) : For those bits in b that are known to be zero, we can propagate known bits from the a to v. assume(~(v | b) = a): For those bits in b that are known to be zero, we can propagate inverted known bits from the a to v. assume(v ^ b = a) : For those bits in b that are known to be zero, we can propagate known bits from the a to v. For those bits in b that are known to be one, we can propagate inverted known bits from the a to v. assume(~(v ^ b) = a) : For those bits in b that are known to be zero, we can propagate inverted known bits from the a to v. For those bits in b that are known to be one, we can propagate known bits from the a to v. assume(v << c = a) : For those bits in a that are known, we can propagate them to known bits in v shifted to the right by c. assume(~(v << c) = a) : For those bits in a that are known, we can propagate them inverted to known bits in v shifted to the right by c. assume(v >> c = a) : For those bits in a that are known, we can propagate them to known bits in v shifted to the right by c. assume(~(v >> c) = a) : For those bits in a that are known, we can propagate them inverted to known bits in v shifted to the right by c. assume(v >=_s c) where c is non-negative: The sign bit of v is zero assume(v >_s c) where c is at least -1: The sign bit of v is zero assume(v <=_s c) where c is negative: The sign bit of v is one assume(v <_s c) where c is non-positive: The sign bit of v is one assume(v <=_u c): Transfer the known high zero bits assume(v <_u c): Transfer the known high zero bits (if c is know to be a power of 2, transfer one more) A small addition to InstCombine was necessary for some of the test cases. The problem is that when InstCombine was simplifying and, or, etc. it would fail to check the 'do I know all of the bits' condition before checking less specific conditions and would not fully constant-fold the result. I'm not sure how to trigger this aside from using assumptions, so I've just included the change here. llvm-svn: 217343
2014-09-08 03:21:07 +08:00
// Whatever high bits in c are zero are known to be zero (if c is a power
// of 2, then one more).
if (isKnownToBeAPowerOfTwo(A, false, Depth + 1, Query(Q, I)))
KnownZero.setHighBits(RHSKnownZero.countLeadingOnes()+1);
Add additional patterns for @llvm.assume in ValueTracking This builds on r217342, which added the infrastructure to compute known bits using assumptions (@llvm.assume calls). That original commit added only a few patterns (to catch common cases related to determining pointer alignment); this change adds several other patterns for simple cases. r217342 contained that, for assume(v & b = a), bits in the mask that are known to be one, we can propagate known bits from the a to v. It also had a known-bits transfer for assume(a = b). This patch adds: assume(~(v & b) = a) : For those bits in the mask that are known to be one, we can propagate inverted known bits from the a to v. assume(v | b = a) : For those bits in b that are known to be zero, we can propagate known bits from the a to v. assume(~(v | b) = a): For those bits in b that are known to be zero, we can propagate inverted known bits from the a to v. assume(v ^ b = a) : For those bits in b that are known to be zero, we can propagate known bits from the a to v. For those bits in b that are known to be one, we can propagate inverted known bits from the a to v. assume(~(v ^ b) = a) : For those bits in b that are known to be zero, we can propagate inverted known bits from the a to v. For those bits in b that are known to be one, we can propagate known bits from the a to v. assume(v << c = a) : For those bits in a that are known, we can propagate them to known bits in v shifted to the right by c. assume(~(v << c) = a) : For those bits in a that are known, we can propagate them inverted to known bits in v shifted to the right by c. assume(v >> c = a) : For those bits in a that are known, we can propagate them to known bits in v shifted to the right by c. assume(~(v >> c) = a) : For those bits in a that are known, we can propagate them inverted to known bits in v shifted to the right by c. assume(v >=_s c) where c is non-negative: The sign bit of v is zero assume(v >_s c) where c is at least -1: The sign bit of v is zero assume(v <=_s c) where c is negative: The sign bit of v is one assume(v <_s c) where c is non-positive: The sign bit of v is one assume(v <=_u c): Transfer the known high zero bits assume(v <_u c): Transfer the known high zero bits (if c is know to be a power of 2, transfer one more) A small addition to InstCombine was necessary for some of the test cases. The problem is that when InstCombine was simplifying and, or, etc. it would fail to check the 'do I know all of the bits' condition before checking less specific conditions and would not fully constant-fold the result. I'm not sure how to trigger this aside from using assumptions, so I've just included the change here. llvm-svn: 217343
2014-09-08 03:21:07 +08:00
else
KnownZero.setHighBits(RHSKnownZero.countLeadingOnes());
Make use of @llvm.assume in ValueTracking (computeKnownBits, etc.) This change, which allows @llvm.assume to be used from within computeKnownBits (and other associated functions in ValueTracking), adds some (optional) parameters to computeKnownBits and friends. These functions now (optionally) take a "context" instruction pointer, an AssumptionTracker pointer, and also a DomTree pointer, and most of the changes are just to pass this new information when it is easily available from InstSimplify, InstCombine, etc. As explained below, the significant conceptual change is that known properties of a value might depend on the control-flow location of the use (because we care that the @llvm.assume dominates the use because assumptions have control-flow dependencies). This means that, when we ask if bits are known in a value, we might get different answers for different uses. The significant changes are all in ValueTracking. Two main changes: First, as with the rest of the code, new parameters need to be passed around. To make this easier, I grouped them into a structure, and I made internal static versions of the relevant functions that take this structure as a parameter. The new code does as you might expect, it looks for @llvm.assume calls that make use of the value we're trying to learn something about (often indirectly), attempts to pattern match that expression, and uses the result if successful. By making use of the AssumptionTracker, the process of finding @llvm.assume calls is not expensive. Part of the structure being passed around inside ValueTracking is a set of already-considered @llvm.assume calls. This is to prevent a query using, for example, the assume(a == b), to recurse on itself. The context and DT params are used to find applicable assumptions. An assumption needs to dominate the context instruction, or come after it deterministically. In this latter case we only handle the specific case where both the assumption and the context instruction are in the same block, and we need to exclude assumptions from being used to simplify their own ephemeral values (those which contribute only to the assumption) because otherwise the assumption would prove its feeding comparison trivial and would be removed. This commit adds the plumbing and the logic for a simple masked-bit propagation (just enough to write a regression test). Future commits add more patterns (and, correspondingly, more regression tests). llvm-svn: 217342
2014-09-08 02:57:58 +08:00
}
}
// If assumptions conflict with each other or previous known bits, then we
// have a logical fallacy. It's possible that the assumption is not reachable,
// so this isn't a real bug. On the other hand, the program may have undefined
// behavior, or we might have a bug in the compiler. We can't assert/crash, so
// clear out the known bits, try to warn the user, and hope for the best.
if ((KnownZero & KnownOne) != 0) {
KnownZero.clearAllBits();
KnownOne.clearAllBits();
if (Q.ORE) {
auto *CxtI = const_cast<Instruction *>(Q.CxtI);
OptimizationRemarkAnalysis ORA("value-tracking", "BadAssumption", CxtI);
Q.ORE->emit(ORA << "Detected conflicting code assumptions. Program may "
"have undefined behavior, or compiler may have "
"internal error.");
}
}
Make use of @llvm.assume in ValueTracking (computeKnownBits, etc.) This change, which allows @llvm.assume to be used from within computeKnownBits (and other associated functions in ValueTracking), adds some (optional) parameters to computeKnownBits and friends. These functions now (optionally) take a "context" instruction pointer, an AssumptionTracker pointer, and also a DomTree pointer, and most of the changes are just to pass this new information when it is easily available from InstSimplify, InstCombine, etc. As explained below, the significant conceptual change is that known properties of a value might depend on the control-flow location of the use (because we care that the @llvm.assume dominates the use because assumptions have control-flow dependencies). This means that, when we ask if bits are known in a value, we might get different answers for different uses. The significant changes are all in ValueTracking. Two main changes: First, as with the rest of the code, new parameters need to be passed around. To make this easier, I grouped them into a structure, and I made internal static versions of the relevant functions that take this structure as a parameter. The new code does as you might expect, it looks for @llvm.assume calls that make use of the value we're trying to learn something about (often indirectly), attempts to pattern match that expression, and uses the result if successful. By making use of the AssumptionTracker, the process of finding @llvm.assume calls is not expensive. Part of the structure being passed around inside ValueTracking is a set of already-considered @llvm.assume calls. This is to prevent a query using, for example, the assume(a == b), to recurse on itself. The context and DT params are used to find applicable assumptions. An assumption needs to dominate the context instruction, or come after it deterministically. In this latter case we only handle the specific case where both the assumption and the context instruction are in the same block, and we need to exclude assumptions from being used to simplify their own ephemeral values (those which contribute only to the assumption) because otherwise the assumption would prove its feeding comparison trivial and would be removed. This commit adds the plumbing and the logic for a simple masked-bit propagation (just enough to write a regression test). Future commits add more patterns (and, correspondingly, more regression tests). llvm-svn: 217342
2014-09-08 02:57:58 +08:00
}
Handle non-constant shifts in computeKnownBits, and use computeKnownBits for constant folding in InstCombine/Simplify First, the motivation: LLVM currently does not realize that: ((2072 >> (L == 0)) >> 7) & 1 == 0 where L is some arbitrary value. Whether you right-shift 2072 by 7 or by 8, the lowest-order bit is always zero. There are obviously several ways to go about fixing this, but the generic solution pursued in this patch is to teach computeKnownBits something about shifts by a non-constant amount. Previously, we would give up completely on these. Instead, in cases where we know something about the low-order bits of the shift-amount operand, we can combine (and together) the associated restrictions for all shift amounts consistent with that knowledge. As a further generalization, I refactored all of the logic for all three kinds of shifts to have this capability. This works well in the above case, for example, because the dynamic shift amount can only be 0 or 1, and thus we can say a lot about the known bits of the result. This brings us to the second part of this change: Even when we know all of the bits of a value via computeKnownBits, nothing used to constant-fold the result. This introduces the necessary code into InstCombine and InstSimplify. I've added it into both because: 1. InstCombine won't automatically pick up the associated logic in InstSimplify (InstCombine uses InstSimplify, but not via the API that passes in the original instruction). 2. Putting the logic in InstCombine allows the resulting simplifications to become part of the iterative worklist 3. Putting the logic in InstSimplify allows the resulting simplifications to be used by everywhere else that calls SimplifyInstruction (inlining, unrolling, and many others). And this requires a small change to our definition of an ephemeral value so that we don't break the rest case from r246696 (where the icmp feeding the @llvm.assume, is also feeding a br). Under the old definition, the icmp would not be considered ephemeral (because it is used by the br), but this causes the assume to remove itself (in addition to simplifying the branch structure), and it seems more-useful to prevent that from happening. llvm-svn: 251146
2015-10-24 04:37:08 +08:00
// Compute known bits from a shift operator, including those with a
// non-constant shift amount. KnownZero and KnownOne are the outputs of this
// function. KnownZero2 and KnownOne2 are pre-allocated temporaries with the
// same bit width as KnownZero and KnownOne. KZF and KOF are operator-specific
// functors that, given the known-zero or known-one bits respectively, and a
// shift amount, compute the implied known-zero or known-one bits of the shift
// operator's result respectively for that shift amount. The results from calling
// KZF and KOF are conservatively combined for all permitted shift amounts.
static void computeKnownBitsFromShiftOperator(
const Operator *I, APInt &KnownZero, APInt &KnownOne, APInt &KnownZero2,
APInt &KnownOne2, unsigned Depth, const Query &Q,
function_ref<APInt(const APInt &, unsigned)> KZF,
function_ref<APInt(const APInt &, unsigned)> KOF) {
Handle non-constant shifts in computeKnownBits, and use computeKnownBits for constant folding in InstCombine/Simplify First, the motivation: LLVM currently does not realize that: ((2072 >> (L == 0)) >> 7) & 1 == 0 where L is some arbitrary value. Whether you right-shift 2072 by 7 or by 8, the lowest-order bit is always zero. There are obviously several ways to go about fixing this, but the generic solution pursued in this patch is to teach computeKnownBits something about shifts by a non-constant amount. Previously, we would give up completely on these. Instead, in cases where we know something about the low-order bits of the shift-amount operand, we can combine (and together) the associated restrictions for all shift amounts consistent with that knowledge. As a further generalization, I refactored all of the logic for all three kinds of shifts to have this capability. This works well in the above case, for example, because the dynamic shift amount can only be 0 or 1, and thus we can say a lot about the known bits of the result. This brings us to the second part of this change: Even when we know all of the bits of a value via computeKnownBits, nothing used to constant-fold the result. This introduces the necessary code into InstCombine and InstSimplify. I've added it into both because: 1. InstCombine won't automatically pick up the associated logic in InstSimplify (InstCombine uses InstSimplify, but not via the API that passes in the original instruction). 2. Putting the logic in InstCombine allows the resulting simplifications to become part of the iterative worklist 3. Putting the logic in InstSimplify allows the resulting simplifications to be used by everywhere else that calls SimplifyInstruction (inlining, unrolling, and many others). And this requires a small change to our definition of an ephemeral value so that we don't break the rest case from r246696 (where the icmp feeding the @llvm.assume, is also feeding a br). Under the old definition, the icmp would not be considered ephemeral (because it is used by the br), but this causes the assume to remove itself (in addition to simplifying the branch structure), and it seems more-useful to prevent that from happening. llvm-svn: 251146
2015-10-24 04:37:08 +08:00
unsigned BitWidth = KnownZero.getBitWidth();
if (auto *SA = dyn_cast<ConstantInt>(I->getOperand(1))) {
unsigned ShiftAmt = SA->getLimitedValue(BitWidth-1);
computeKnownBits(I->getOperand(0), KnownZero, KnownOne, Depth + 1, Q);
Handle non-constant shifts in computeKnownBits, and use computeKnownBits for constant folding in InstCombine/Simplify First, the motivation: LLVM currently does not realize that: ((2072 >> (L == 0)) >> 7) & 1 == 0 where L is some arbitrary value. Whether you right-shift 2072 by 7 or by 8, the lowest-order bit is always zero. There are obviously several ways to go about fixing this, but the generic solution pursued in this patch is to teach computeKnownBits something about shifts by a non-constant amount. Previously, we would give up completely on these. Instead, in cases where we know something about the low-order bits of the shift-amount operand, we can combine (and together) the associated restrictions for all shift amounts consistent with that knowledge. As a further generalization, I refactored all of the logic for all three kinds of shifts to have this capability. This works well in the above case, for example, because the dynamic shift amount can only be 0 or 1, and thus we can say a lot about the known bits of the result. This brings us to the second part of this change: Even when we know all of the bits of a value via computeKnownBits, nothing used to constant-fold the result. This introduces the necessary code into InstCombine and InstSimplify. I've added it into both because: 1. InstCombine won't automatically pick up the associated logic in InstSimplify (InstCombine uses InstSimplify, but not via the API that passes in the original instruction). 2. Putting the logic in InstCombine allows the resulting simplifications to become part of the iterative worklist 3. Putting the logic in InstSimplify allows the resulting simplifications to be used by everywhere else that calls SimplifyInstruction (inlining, unrolling, and many others). And this requires a small change to our definition of an ephemeral value so that we don't break the rest case from r246696 (where the icmp feeding the @llvm.assume, is also feeding a br). Under the old definition, the icmp would not be considered ephemeral (because it is used by the br), but this causes the assume to remove itself (in addition to simplifying the branch structure), and it seems more-useful to prevent that from happening. llvm-svn: 251146
2015-10-24 04:37:08 +08:00
KnownZero = KZF(KnownZero, ShiftAmt);
KnownOne = KOF(KnownOne, ShiftAmt);
// If there is conflict between KnownZero and KnownOne, this must be an
// overflowing left shift, so the shift result is undefined. Clear KnownZero
// and KnownOne bits so that other code could propagate this undef.
if ((KnownZero & KnownOne) != 0) {
KnownZero.clearAllBits();
KnownOne.clearAllBits();
}
Handle non-constant shifts in computeKnownBits, and use computeKnownBits for constant folding in InstCombine/Simplify First, the motivation: LLVM currently does not realize that: ((2072 >> (L == 0)) >> 7) & 1 == 0 where L is some arbitrary value. Whether you right-shift 2072 by 7 or by 8, the lowest-order bit is always zero. There are obviously several ways to go about fixing this, but the generic solution pursued in this patch is to teach computeKnownBits something about shifts by a non-constant amount. Previously, we would give up completely on these. Instead, in cases where we know something about the low-order bits of the shift-amount operand, we can combine (and together) the associated restrictions for all shift amounts consistent with that knowledge. As a further generalization, I refactored all of the logic for all three kinds of shifts to have this capability. This works well in the above case, for example, because the dynamic shift amount can only be 0 or 1, and thus we can say a lot about the known bits of the result. This brings us to the second part of this change: Even when we know all of the bits of a value via computeKnownBits, nothing used to constant-fold the result. This introduces the necessary code into InstCombine and InstSimplify. I've added it into both because: 1. InstCombine won't automatically pick up the associated logic in InstSimplify (InstCombine uses InstSimplify, but not via the API that passes in the original instruction). 2. Putting the logic in InstCombine allows the resulting simplifications to become part of the iterative worklist 3. Putting the logic in InstSimplify allows the resulting simplifications to be used by everywhere else that calls SimplifyInstruction (inlining, unrolling, and many others). And this requires a small change to our definition of an ephemeral value so that we don't break the rest case from r246696 (where the icmp feeding the @llvm.assume, is also feeding a br). Under the old definition, the icmp would not be considered ephemeral (because it is used by the br), but this causes the assume to remove itself (in addition to simplifying the branch structure), and it seems more-useful to prevent that from happening. llvm-svn: 251146
2015-10-24 04:37:08 +08:00
return;
}
computeKnownBits(I->getOperand(1), KnownZero, KnownOne, Depth + 1, Q);
Handle non-constant shifts in computeKnownBits, and use computeKnownBits for constant folding in InstCombine/Simplify First, the motivation: LLVM currently does not realize that: ((2072 >> (L == 0)) >> 7) & 1 == 0 where L is some arbitrary value. Whether you right-shift 2072 by 7 or by 8, the lowest-order bit is always zero. There are obviously several ways to go about fixing this, but the generic solution pursued in this patch is to teach computeKnownBits something about shifts by a non-constant amount. Previously, we would give up completely on these. Instead, in cases where we know something about the low-order bits of the shift-amount operand, we can combine (and together) the associated restrictions for all shift amounts consistent with that knowledge. As a further generalization, I refactored all of the logic for all three kinds of shifts to have this capability. This works well in the above case, for example, because the dynamic shift amount can only be 0 or 1, and thus we can say a lot about the known bits of the result. This brings us to the second part of this change: Even when we know all of the bits of a value via computeKnownBits, nothing used to constant-fold the result. This introduces the necessary code into InstCombine and InstSimplify. I've added it into both because: 1. InstCombine won't automatically pick up the associated logic in InstSimplify (InstCombine uses InstSimplify, but not via the API that passes in the original instruction). 2. Putting the logic in InstCombine allows the resulting simplifications to become part of the iterative worklist 3. Putting the logic in InstSimplify allows the resulting simplifications to be used by everywhere else that calls SimplifyInstruction (inlining, unrolling, and many others). And this requires a small change to our definition of an ephemeral value so that we don't break the rest case from r246696 (where the icmp feeding the @llvm.assume, is also feeding a br). Under the old definition, the icmp would not be considered ephemeral (because it is used by the br), but this causes the assume to remove itself (in addition to simplifying the branch structure), and it seems more-useful to prevent that from happening. llvm-svn: 251146
2015-10-24 04:37:08 +08:00
// If the shift amount could be greater than or equal to the bit-width of the LHS, the
// value could be undef, so we don't know anything about it.
if ((~KnownZero).uge(BitWidth)) {
KnownZero.clearAllBits();
KnownOne.clearAllBits();
return;
}
Handle non-constant shifts in computeKnownBits, and use computeKnownBits for constant folding in InstCombine/Simplify First, the motivation: LLVM currently does not realize that: ((2072 >> (L == 0)) >> 7) & 1 == 0 where L is some arbitrary value. Whether you right-shift 2072 by 7 or by 8, the lowest-order bit is always zero. There are obviously several ways to go about fixing this, but the generic solution pursued in this patch is to teach computeKnownBits something about shifts by a non-constant amount. Previously, we would give up completely on these. Instead, in cases where we know something about the low-order bits of the shift-amount operand, we can combine (and together) the associated restrictions for all shift amounts consistent with that knowledge. As a further generalization, I refactored all of the logic for all three kinds of shifts to have this capability. This works well in the above case, for example, because the dynamic shift amount can only be 0 or 1, and thus we can say a lot about the known bits of the result. This brings us to the second part of this change: Even when we know all of the bits of a value via computeKnownBits, nothing used to constant-fold the result. This introduces the necessary code into InstCombine and InstSimplify. I've added it into both because: 1. InstCombine won't automatically pick up the associated logic in InstSimplify (InstCombine uses InstSimplify, but not via the API that passes in the original instruction). 2. Putting the logic in InstCombine allows the resulting simplifications to become part of the iterative worklist 3. Putting the logic in InstSimplify allows the resulting simplifications to be used by everywhere else that calls SimplifyInstruction (inlining, unrolling, and many others). And this requires a small change to our definition of an ephemeral value so that we don't break the rest case from r246696 (where the icmp feeding the @llvm.assume, is also feeding a br). Under the old definition, the icmp would not be considered ephemeral (because it is used by the br), but this causes the assume to remove itself (in addition to simplifying the branch structure), and it seems more-useful to prevent that from happening. llvm-svn: 251146
2015-10-24 04:37:08 +08:00
// Note: We cannot use KnownZero.getLimitedValue() here, because if
// BitWidth > 64 and any upper bits are known, we'll end up returning the
// limit value (which implies all bits are known).
uint64_t ShiftAmtKZ = KnownZero.zextOrTrunc(64).getZExtValue();
uint64_t ShiftAmtKO = KnownOne.zextOrTrunc(64).getZExtValue();
// It would be more-clearly correct to use the two temporaries for this
// calculation. Reusing the APInts here to prevent unnecessary allocations.
KnownZero.clearAllBits();
KnownOne.clearAllBits();
Handle non-constant shifts in computeKnownBits, and use computeKnownBits for constant folding in InstCombine/Simplify First, the motivation: LLVM currently does not realize that: ((2072 >> (L == 0)) >> 7) & 1 == 0 where L is some arbitrary value. Whether you right-shift 2072 by 7 or by 8, the lowest-order bit is always zero. There are obviously several ways to go about fixing this, but the generic solution pursued in this patch is to teach computeKnownBits something about shifts by a non-constant amount. Previously, we would give up completely on these. Instead, in cases where we know something about the low-order bits of the shift-amount operand, we can combine (and together) the associated restrictions for all shift amounts consistent with that knowledge. As a further generalization, I refactored all of the logic for all three kinds of shifts to have this capability. This works well in the above case, for example, because the dynamic shift amount can only be 0 or 1, and thus we can say a lot about the known bits of the result. This brings us to the second part of this change: Even when we know all of the bits of a value via computeKnownBits, nothing used to constant-fold the result. This introduces the necessary code into InstCombine and InstSimplify. I've added it into both because: 1. InstCombine won't automatically pick up the associated logic in InstSimplify (InstCombine uses InstSimplify, but not via the API that passes in the original instruction). 2. Putting the logic in InstCombine allows the resulting simplifications to become part of the iterative worklist 3. Putting the logic in InstSimplify allows the resulting simplifications to be used by everywhere else that calls SimplifyInstruction (inlining, unrolling, and many others). And this requires a small change to our definition of an ephemeral value so that we don't break the rest case from r246696 (where the icmp feeding the @llvm.assume, is also feeding a br). Under the old definition, the icmp would not be considered ephemeral (because it is used by the br), but this causes the assume to remove itself (in addition to simplifying the branch structure), and it seems more-useful to prevent that from happening. llvm-svn: 251146
2015-10-24 04:37:08 +08:00
// If we know the shifter operand is nonzero, we can sometimes infer more
// known bits. However this is expensive to compute, so be lazy about it and
// only compute it when absolutely necessary.
Optional<bool> ShifterOperandIsNonZero;
Handle non-constant shifts in computeKnownBits, and use computeKnownBits for constant folding in InstCombine/Simplify First, the motivation: LLVM currently does not realize that: ((2072 >> (L == 0)) >> 7) & 1 == 0 where L is some arbitrary value. Whether you right-shift 2072 by 7 or by 8, the lowest-order bit is always zero. There are obviously several ways to go about fixing this, but the generic solution pursued in this patch is to teach computeKnownBits something about shifts by a non-constant amount. Previously, we would give up completely on these. Instead, in cases where we know something about the low-order bits of the shift-amount operand, we can combine (and together) the associated restrictions for all shift amounts consistent with that knowledge. As a further generalization, I refactored all of the logic for all three kinds of shifts to have this capability. This works well in the above case, for example, because the dynamic shift amount can only be 0 or 1, and thus we can say a lot about the known bits of the result. This brings us to the second part of this change: Even when we know all of the bits of a value via computeKnownBits, nothing used to constant-fold the result. This introduces the necessary code into InstCombine and InstSimplify. I've added it into both because: 1. InstCombine won't automatically pick up the associated logic in InstSimplify (InstCombine uses InstSimplify, but not via the API that passes in the original instruction). 2. Putting the logic in InstCombine allows the resulting simplifications to become part of the iterative worklist 3. Putting the logic in InstSimplify allows the resulting simplifications to be used by everywhere else that calls SimplifyInstruction (inlining, unrolling, and many others). And this requires a small change to our definition of an ephemeral value so that we don't break the rest case from r246696 (where the icmp feeding the @llvm.assume, is also feeding a br). Under the old definition, the icmp would not be considered ephemeral (because it is used by the br), but this causes the assume to remove itself (in addition to simplifying the branch structure), and it seems more-useful to prevent that from happening. llvm-svn: 251146
2015-10-24 04:37:08 +08:00
// Early exit if we can't constrain any well-defined shift amount.
if (!(ShiftAmtKZ & (BitWidth - 1)) && !(ShiftAmtKO & (BitWidth - 1))) {
ShifterOperandIsNonZero =
isKnownNonZero(I->getOperand(1), Depth + 1, Q);
if (!*ShifterOperandIsNonZero)
return;
}
Handle non-constant shifts in computeKnownBits, and use computeKnownBits for constant folding in InstCombine/Simplify First, the motivation: LLVM currently does not realize that: ((2072 >> (L == 0)) >> 7) & 1 == 0 where L is some arbitrary value. Whether you right-shift 2072 by 7 or by 8, the lowest-order bit is always zero. There are obviously several ways to go about fixing this, but the generic solution pursued in this patch is to teach computeKnownBits something about shifts by a non-constant amount. Previously, we would give up completely on these. Instead, in cases where we know something about the low-order bits of the shift-amount operand, we can combine (and together) the associated restrictions for all shift amounts consistent with that knowledge. As a further generalization, I refactored all of the logic for all three kinds of shifts to have this capability. This works well in the above case, for example, because the dynamic shift amount can only be 0 or 1, and thus we can say a lot about the known bits of the result. This brings us to the second part of this change: Even when we know all of the bits of a value via computeKnownBits, nothing used to constant-fold the result. This introduces the necessary code into InstCombine and InstSimplify. I've added it into both because: 1. InstCombine won't automatically pick up the associated logic in InstSimplify (InstCombine uses InstSimplify, but not via the API that passes in the original instruction). 2. Putting the logic in InstCombine allows the resulting simplifications to become part of the iterative worklist 3. Putting the logic in InstSimplify allows the resulting simplifications to be used by everywhere else that calls SimplifyInstruction (inlining, unrolling, and many others). And this requires a small change to our definition of an ephemeral value so that we don't break the rest case from r246696 (where the icmp feeding the @llvm.assume, is also feeding a br). Under the old definition, the icmp would not be considered ephemeral (because it is used by the br), but this causes the assume to remove itself (in addition to simplifying the branch structure), and it seems more-useful to prevent that from happening. llvm-svn: 251146
2015-10-24 04:37:08 +08:00
computeKnownBits(I->getOperand(0), KnownZero2, KnownOne2, Depth + 1, Q);
Handle non-constant shifts in computeKnownBits, and use computeKnownBits for constant folding in InstCombine/Simplify First, the motivation: LLVM currently does not realize that: ((2072 >> (L == 0)) >> 7) & 1 == 0 where L is some arbitrary value. Whether you right-shift 2072 by 7 or by 8, the lowest-order bit is always zero. There are obviously several ways to go about fixing this, but the generic solution pursued in this patch is to teach computeKnownBits something about shifts by a non-constant amount. Previously, we would give up completely on these. Instead, in cases where we know something about the low-order bits of the shift-amount operand, we can combine (and together) the associated restrictions for all shift amounts consistent with that knowledge. As a further generalization, I refactored all of the logic for all three kinds of shifts to have this capability. This works well in the above case, for example, because the dynamic shift amount can only be 0 or 1, and thus we can say a lot about the known bits of the result. This brings us to the second part of this change: Even when we know all of the bits of a value via computeKnownBits, nothing used to constant-fold the result. This introduces the necessary code into InstCombine and InstSimplify. I've added it into both because: 1. InstCombine won't automatically pick up the associated logic in InstSimplify (InstCombine uses InstSimplify, but not via the API that passes in the original instruction). 2. Putting the logic in InstCombine allows the resulting simplifications to become part of the iterative worklist 3. Putting the logic in InstSimplify allows the resulting simplifications to be used by everywhere else that calls SimplifyInstruction (inlining, unrolling, and many others). And this requires a small change to our definition of an ephemeral value so that we don't break the rest case from r246696 (where the icmp feeding the @llvm.assume, is also feeding a br). Under the old definition, the icmp would not be considered ephemeral (because it is used by the br), but this causes the assume to remove itself (in addition to simplifying the branch structure), and it seems more-useful to prevent that from happening. llvm-svn: 251146
2015-10-24 04:37:08 +08:00
KnownZero = KnownOne = APInt::getAllOnesValue(BitWidth);
for (unsigned ShiftAmt = 0; ShiftAmt < BitWidth; ++ShiftAmt) {
// Combine the shifted known input bits only for those shift amounts
// compatible with its known constraints.
if ((ShiftAmt & ~ShiftAmtKZ) != ShiftAmt)
continue;
if ((ShiftAmt | ShiftAmtKO) != ShiftAmt)
continue;
// If we know the shifter is nonzero, we may be able to infer more known
// bits. This check is sunk down as far as possible to avoid the expensive
// call to isKnownNonZero if the cheaper checks above fail.
if (ShiftAmt == 0) {
if (!ShifterOperandIsNonZero.hasValue())
ShifterOperandIsNonZero =
isKnownNonZero(I->getOperand(1), Depth + 1, Q);
if (*ShifterOperandIsNonZero)
continue;
}
Handle non-constant shifts in computeKnownBits, and use computeKnownBits for constant folding in InstCombine/Simplify First, the motivation: LLVM currently does not realize that: ((2072 >> (L == 0)) >> 7) & 1 == 0 where L is some arbitrary value. Whether you right-shift 2072 by 7 or by 8, the lowest-order bit is always zero. There are obviously several ways to go about fixing this, but the generic solution pursued in this patch is to teach computeKnownBits something about shifts by a non-constant amount. Previously, we would give up completely on these. Instead, in cases where we know something about the low-order bits of the shift-amount operand, we can combine (and together) the associated restrictions for all shift amounts consistent with that knowledge. As a further generalization, I refactored all of the logic for all three kinds of shifts to have this capability. This works well in the above case, for example, because the dynamic shift amount can only be 0 or 1, and thus we can say a lot about the known bits of the result. This brings us to the second part of this change: Even when we know all of the bits of a value via computeKnownBits, nothing used to constant-fold the result. This introduces the necessary code into InstCombine and InstSimplify. I've added it into both because: 1. InstCombine won't automatically pick up the associated logic in InstSimplify (InstCombine uses InstSimplify, but not via the API that passes in the original instruction). 2. Putting the logic in InstCombine allows the resulting simplifications to become part of the iterative worklist 3. Putting the logic in InstSimplify allows the resulting simplifications to be used by everywhere else that calls SimplifyInstruction (inlining, unrolling, and many others). And this requires a small change to our definition of an ephemeral value so that we don't break the rest case from r246696 (where the icmp feeding the @llvm.assume, is also feeding a br). Under the old definition, the icmp would not be considered ephemeral (because it is used by the br), but this causes the assume to remove itself (in addition to simplifying the branch structure), and it seems more-useful to prevent that from happening. llvm-svn: 251146
2015-10-24 04:37:08 +08:00
KnownZero &= KZF(KnownZero2, ShiftAmt);
KnownOne &= KOF(KnownOne2, ShiftAmt);
}
// If there are no compatible shift amounts, then we've proven that the shift
// amount must be >= the BitWidth, and the result is undefined. We could
// return anything we'd like, but we need to make sure the sets of known bits
// stay disjoint (it should be better for some other code to actually
// propagate the undef than to pick a value here using known bits).
if ((KnownZero & KnownOne) != 0) {
KnownZero.clearAllBits();
KnownOne.clearAllBits();
}
Handle non-constant shifts in computeKnownBits, and use computeKnownBits for constant folding in InstCombine/Simplify First, the motivation: LLVM currently does not realize that: ((2072 >> (L == 0)) >> 7) & 1 == 0 where L is some arbitrary value. Whether you right-shift 2072 by 7 or by 8, the lowest-order bit is always zero. There are obviously several ways to go about fixing this, but the generic solution pursued in this patch is to teach computeKnownBits something about shifts by a non-constant amount. Previously, we would give up completely on these. Instead, in cases where we know something about the low-order bits of the shift-amount operand, we can combine (and together) the associated restrictions for all shift amounts consistent with that knowledge. As a further generalization, I refactored all of the logic for all three kinds of shifts to have this capability. This works well in the above case, for example, because the dynamic shift amount can only be 0 or 1, and thus we can say a lot about the known bits of the result. This brings us to the second part of this change: Even when we know all of the bits of a value via computeKnownBits, nothing used to constant-fold the result. This introduces the necessary code into InstCombine and InstSimplify. I've added it into both because: 1. InstCombine won't automatically pick up the associated logic in InstSimplify (InstCombine uses InstSimplify, but not via the API that passes in the original instruction). 2. Putting the logic in InstCombine allows the resulting simplifications to become part of the iterative worklist 3. Putting the logic in InstSimplify allows the resulting simplifications to be used by everywhere else that calls SimplifyInstruction (inlining, unrolling, and many others). And this requires a small change to our definition of an ephemeral value so that we don't break the rest case from r246696 (where the icmp feeding the @llvm.assume, is also feeding a br). Under the old definition, the icmp would not be considered ephemeral (because it is used by the br), but this causes the assume to remove itself (in addition to simplifying the branch structure), and it seems more-useful to prevent that from happening. llvm-svn: 251146
2015-10-24 04:37:08 +08:00
}
static void computeKnownBitsFromOperator(const Operator *I, APInt &KnownZero,
APInt &KnownOne, unsigned Depth,
const Query &Q) {
unsigned BitWidth = KnownZero.getBitWidth();
APInt KnownZero2(KnownZero), KnownOne2(KnownOne);
switch (I->getOpcode()) {
default: break;
case Instruction::Load:
if (MDNode *MD = cast<LoadInst>(I)->getMetadata(LLVMContext::MD_range))
computeKnownBitsFromRangeMetadata(*MD, KnownZero, KnownOne);
break;
case Instruction::And: {
// If either the LHS or the RHS are Zero, the result is zero.
computeKnownBits(I->getOperand(1), KnownZero, KnownOne, Depth + 1, Q);
computeKnownBits(I->getOperand(0), KnownZero2, KnownOne2, Depth + 1, Q);
// Output known-1 bits are only known if set in both the LHS & RHS.
KnownOne &= KnownOne2;
// Output known-0 are known to be clear if zero in either the LHS | RHS.
KnownZero |= KnownZero2;
// and(x, add (x, -1)) is a common idiom that always clears the low bit;
// here we handle the more general case of adding any odd number by
// matching the form add(x, add(x, y)) where y is odd.
// TODO: This could be generalized to clearing any bit set in y where the
// following bit is known to be unset in y.
Value *Y = nullptr;
if (match(I->getOperand(0), m_Add(m_Specific(I->getOperand(1)),
m_Value(Y))) ||
match(I->getOperand(1), m_Add(m_Specific(I->getOperand(0)),
m_Value(Y)))) {
APInt KnownZero3(BitWidth, 0), KnownOne3(BitWidth, 0);
computeKnownBits(Y, KnownZero3, KnownOne3, Depth + 1, Q);
if (KnownOne3.countTrailingOnes() > 0)
KnownZero.setBit(0);
}
break;
}
case Instruction::Or: {
computeKnownBits(I->getOperand(1), KnownZero, KnownOne, Depth + 1, Q);
computeKnownBits(I->getOperand(0), KnownZero2, KnownOne2, Depth + 1, Q);
// Output known-0 bits are only known if clear in both the LHS & RHS.
KnownZero &= KnownZero2;
// Output known-1 are known to be set if set in either the LHS | RHS.
KnownOne |= KnownOne2;
break;
}
case Instruction::Xor: {
computeKnownBits(I->getOperand(1), KnownZero, KnownOne, Depth + 1, Q);
computeKnownBits(I->getOperand(0), KnownZero2, KnownOne2, Depth + 1, Q);
// Output known-0 bits are known if clear or set in both the LHS & RHS.
APInt KnownZeroOut = (KnownZero & KnownZero2) | (KnownOne & KnownOne2);
// Output known-1 are known to be set if set in only one of the LHS, RHS.
KnownOne = (KnownZero & KnownOne2) | (KnownOne & KnownZero2);
KnownZero = KnownZeroOut;
break;
}
case Instruction::Mul: {
bool NSW = cast<OverflowingBinaryOperator>(I)->hasNoSignedWrap();
computeKnownBitsMul(I->getOperand(0), I->getOperand(1), NSW, KnownZero,
KnownOne, KnownZero2, KnownOne2, Depth, Q);
break;
}
case Instruction::UDiv: {
// For the purposes of computing leading zeros we can conservatively
// treat a udiv as a logical right shift by the power of 2 known to
// be less than the denominator.
computeKnownBits(I->getOperand(0), KnownZero2, KnownOne2, Depth + 1, Q);
unsigned LeadZ = KnownZero2.countLeadingOnes();
KnownOne2.clearAllBits();
KnownZero2.clearAllBits();
computeKnownBits(I->getOperand(1), KnownZero2, KnownOne2, Depth + 1, Q);
unsigned RHSUnknownLeadingOnes = KnownOne2.countLeadingZeros();
if (RHSUnknownLeadingOnes != BitWidth)
LeadZ = std::min(BitWidth,
LeadZ + BitWidth - RHSUnknownLeadingOnes - 1);
KnownZero.setHighBits(LeadZ);
break;
}
case Instruction::Select: {
computeKnownBits(I->getOperand(2), KnownZero, KnownOne, Depth + 1, Q);
computeKnownBits(I->getOperand(1), KnownZero2, KnownOne2, Depth + 1, Q);
const Value *LHS;
const Value *RHS;
SelectPatternFlavor SPF = matchSelectPattern(I, LHS, RHS).Flavor;
if (SelectPatternResult::isMinOrMax(SPF)) {
computeKnownBits(RHS, KnownZero, KnownOne, Depth + 1, Q);
computeKnownBits(LHS, KnownZero2, KnownOne2, Depth + 1, Q);
} else {
computeKnownBits(I->getOperand(2), KnownZero, KnownOne, Depth + 1, Q);
computeKnownBits(I->getOperand(1), KnownZero2, KnownOne2, Depth + 1, Q);
}
unsigned MaxHighOnes = 0;
unsigned MaxHighZeros = 0;
if (SPF == SPF_SMAX) {
// If both sides are negative, the result is negative.
if (KnownOne.isNegative() && KnownOne2.isNegative())
// We can derive a lower bound on the result by taking the max of the
// leading one bits.
MaxHighOnes =
std::max(KnownOne.countLeadingOnes(), KnownOne2.countLeadingOnes());
// If either side is non-negative, the result is non-negative.
else if (KnownZero.isNegative() || KnownZero2.isNegative())
MaxHighZeros = 1;
} else if (SPF == SPF_SMIN) {
// If both sides are non-negative, the result is non-negative.
if (KnownZero.isNegative() && KnownZero2.isNegative())
// We can derive an upper bound on the result by taking the max of the
// leading zero bits.
MaxHighZeros = std::max(KnownZero.countLeadingOnes(),
KnownZero2.countLeadingOnes());
// If either side is negative, the result is negative.
else if (KnownOne[BitWidth - 1] || KnownOne2[BitWidth - 1])
MaxHighOnes = 1;
} else if (SPF == SPF_UMAX) {
// We can derive a lower bound on the result by taking the max of the
// leading one bits.
MaxHighOnes =
std::max(KnownOne.countLeadingOnes(), KnownOne2.countLeadingOnes());
} else if (SPF == SPF_UMIN) {
// We can derive an upper bound on the result by taking the max of the
// leading zero bits.
MaxHighZeros =
std::max(KnownZero.countLeadingOnes(), KnownZero2.countLeadingOnes());
}
// Only known if known in both the LHS and RHS.
KnownOne &= KnownOne2;
KnownZero &= KnownZero2;
if (MaxHighOnes > 0)
KnownOne.setHighBits(MaxHighOnes);
if (MaxHighZeros > 0)
KnownZero.setHighBits(MaxHighZeros);
break;
}
case Instruction::FPTrunc:
case Instruction::FPExt:
case Instruction::FPToUI:
case Instruction::FPToSI:
case Instruction::SIToFP:
case Instruction::UIToFP:
break; // Can't work with floating point.
case Instruction::PtrToInt:
case Instruction::IntToPtr:
// Fall through and handle them the same as zext/trunc.
LLVM_FALLTHROUGH;
case Instruction::ZExt:
case Instruction::Trunc: {
Type *SrcTy = I->getOperand(0)->getType();
unsigned SrcBitWidth;
// Note that we handle pointer operands here because of inttoptr/ptrtoint
// which fall through here.
SrcBitWidth = Q.DL.getTypeSizeInBits(SrcTy->getScalarType());
assert(SrcBitWidth && "SrcBitWidth can't be zero");
KnownZero = KnownZero.zextOrTrunc(SrcBitWidth);
KnownOne = KnownOne.zextOrTrunc(SrcBitWidth);
computeKnownBits(I->getOperand(0), KnownZero, KnownOne, Depth + 1, Q);
KnownZero = KnownZero.zextOrTrunc(BitWidth);
KnownOne = KnownOne.zextOrTrunc(BitWidth);
// Any top bits are known to be zero.
if (BitWidth > SrcBitWidth)
KnownZero.setBitsFrom(SrcBitWidth);
break;
}
case Instruction::BitCast: {
Type *SrcTy = I->getOperand(0)->getType();
if ((SrcTy->isIntegerTy() || SrcTy->isPointerTy()) &&
// TODO: For now, not handling conversions like:
// (bitcast i64 %x to <2 x i32>)
!I->getType()->isVectorTy()) {
computeKnownBits(I->getOperand(0), KnownZero, KnownOne, Depth + 1, Q);
break;
}
break;
}
case Instruction::SExt: {
// Compute the bits in the result that are not present in the input.
unsigned SrcBitWidth = I->getOperand(0)->getType()->getScalarSizeInBits();
KnownZero = KnownZero.trunc(SrcBitWidth);
KnownOne = KnownOne.trunc(SrcBitWidth);
computeKnownBits(I->getOperand(0), KnownZero, KnownOne, Depth + 1, Q);
KnownZero = KnownZero.zext(BitWidth);
KnownOne = KnownOne.zext(BitWidth);
// If the sign bit of the input is known set or clear, then we know the
// top bits of the result.
if (KnownZero[SrcBitWidth-1]) // Input sign bit known zero
KnownZero.setBitsFrom(SrcBitWidth);
else if (KnownOne[SrcBitWidth-1]) // Input sign bit known set
KnownOne.setBitsFrom(SrcBitWidth);
break;
}
Handle non-constant shifts in computeKnownBits, and use computeKnownBits for constant folding in InstCombine/Simplify First, the motivation: LLVM currently does not realize that: ((2072 >> (L == 0)) >> 7) & 1 == 0 where L is some arbitrary value. Whether you right-shift 2072 by 7 or by 8, the lowest-order bit is always zero. There are obviously several ways to go about fixing this, but the generic solution pursued in this patch is to teach computeKnownBits something about shifts by a non-constant amount. Previously, we would give up completely on these. Instead, in cases where we know something about the low-order bits of the shift-amount operand, we can combine (and together) the associated restrictions for all shift amounts consistent with that knowledge. As a further generalization, I refactored all of the logic for all three kinds of shifts to have this capability. This works well in the above case, for example, because the dynamic shift amount can only be 0 or 1, and thus we can say a lot about the known bits of the result. This brings us to the second part of this change: Even when we know all of the bits of a value via computeKnownBits, nothing used to constant-fold the result. This introduces the necessary code into InstCombine and InstSimplify. I've added it into both because: 1. InstCombine won't automatically pick up the associated logic in InstSimplify (InstCombine uses InstSimplify, but not via the API that passes in the original instruction). 2. Putting the logic in InstCombine allows the resulting simplifications to become part of the iterative worklist 3. Putting the logic in InstSimplify allows the resulting simplifications to be used by everywhere else that calls SimplifyInstruction (inlining, unrolling, and many others). And this requires a small change to our definition of an ephemeral value so that we don't break the rest case from r246696 (where the icmp feeding the @llvm.assume, is also feeding a br). Under the old definition, the icmp would not be considered ephemeral (because it is used by the br), but this causes the assume to remove itself (in addition to simplifying the branch structure), and it seems more-useful to prevent that from happening. llvm-svn: 251146
2015-10-24 04:37:08 +08:00
case Instruction::Shl: {
// (shl X, C1) & C2 == 0 iff (X & C2 >>u C1) == 0
bool NSW = cast<OverflowingBinaryOperator>(I)->hasNoSignedWrap();
auto KZF = [NSW](const APInt &KnownZero, unsigned ShiftAmt) {
APInt KZResult = KnownZero << ShiftAmt;
KZResult.setLowBits(ShiftAmt); // Low bits known 0.
// If this shift has "nsw" keyword, then the result is either a poison
// value or has the same sign bit as the first operand.
if (NSW && KnownZero.isNegative())
KZResult.setSignBit();
return KZResult;
Handle non-constant shifts in computeKnownBits, and use computeKnownBits for constant folding in InstCombine/Simplify First, the motivation: LLVM currently does not realize that: ((2072 >> (L == 0)) >> 7) & 1 == 0 where L is some arbitrary value. Whether you right-shift 2072 by 7 or by 8, the lowest-order bit is always zero. There are obviously several ways to go about fixing this, but the generic solution pursued in this patch is to teach computeKnownBits something about shifts by a non-constant amount. Previously, we would give up completely on these. Instead, in cases where we know something about the low-order bits of the shift-amount operand, we can combine (and together) the associated restrictions for all shift amounts consistent with that knowledge. As a further generalization, I refactored all of the logic for all three kinds of shifts to have this capability. This works well in the above case, for example, because the dynamic shift amount can only be 0 or 1, and thus we can say a lot about the known bits of the result. This brings us to the second part of this change: Even when we know all of the bits of a value via computeKnownBits, nothing used to constant-fold the result. This introduces the necessary code into InstCombine and InstSimplify. I've added it into both because: 1. InstCombine won't automatically pick up the associated logic in InstSimplify (InstCombine uses InstSimplify, but not via the API that passes in the original instruction). 2. Putting the logic in InstCombine allows the resulting simplifications to become part of the iterative worklist 3. Putting the logic in InstSimplify allows the resulting simplifications to be used by everywhere else that calls SimplifyInstruction (inlining, unrolling, and many others). And this requires a small change to our definition of an ephemeral value so that we don't break the rest case from r246696 (where the icmp feeding the @llvm.assume, is also feeding a br). Under the old definition, the icmp would not be considered ephemeral (because it is used by the br), but this causes the assume to remove itself (in addition to simplifying the branch structure), and it seems more-useful to prevent that from happening. llvm-svn: 251146
2015-10-24 04:37:08 +08:00
};
auto KOF = [NSW](const APInt &KnownOne, unsigned ShiftAmt) {
APInt KOResult = KnownOne << ShiftAmt;
if (NSW && KnownOne.isNegative())
KOResult.setSignBit();
return KOResult;
Handle non-constant shifts in computeKnownBits, and use computeKnownBits for constant folding in InstCombine/Simplify First, the motivation: LLVM currently does not realize that: ((2072 >> (L == 0)) >> 7) & 1 == 0 where L is some arbitrary value. Whether you right-shift 2072 by 7 or by 8, the lowest-order bit is always zero. There are obviously several ways to go about fixing this, but the generic solution pursued in this patch is to teach computeKnownBits something about shifts by a non-constant amount. Previously, we would give up completely on these. Instead, in cases where we know something about the low-order bits of the shift-amount operand, we can combine (and together) the associated restrictions for all shift amounts consistent with that knowledge. As a further generalization, I refactored all of the logic for all three kinds of shifts to have this capability. This works well in the above case, for example, because the dynamic shift amount can only be 0 or 1, and thus we can say a lot about the known bits of the result. This brings us to the second part of this change: Even when we know all of the bits of a value via computeKnownBits, nothing used to constant-fold the result. This introduces the necessary code into InstCombine and InstSimplify. I've added it into both because: 1. InstCombine won't automatically pick up the associated logic in InstSimplify (InstCombine uses InstSimplify, but not via the API that passes in the original instruction). 2. Putting the logic in InstCombine allows the resulting simplifications to become part of the iterative worklist 3. Putting the logic in InstSimplify allows the resulting simplifications to be used by everywhere else that calls SimplifyInstruction (inlining, unrolling, and many others). And this requires a small change to our definition of an ephemeral value so that we don't break the rest case from r246696 (where the icmp feeding the @llvm.assume, is also feeding a br). Under the old definition, the icmp would not be considered ephemeral (because it is used by the br), but this causes the assume to remove itself (in addition to simplifying the branch structure), and it seems more-useful to prevent that from happening. llvm-svn: 251146
2015-10-24 04:37:08 +08:00
};
computeKnownBitsFromShiftOperator(I, KnownZero, KnownOne,
KnownZero2, KnownOne2, Depth, Q, KZF,
KOF);
break;
Handle non-constant shifts in computeKnownBits, and use computeKnownBits for constant folding in InstCombine/Simplify First, the motivation: LLVM currently does not realize that: ((2072 >> (L == 0)) >> 7) & 1 == 0 where L is some arbitrary value. Whether you right-shift 2072 by 7 or by 8, the lowest-order bit is always zero. There are obviously several ways to go about fixing this, but the generic solution pursued in this patch is to teach computeKnownBits something about shifts by a non-constant amount. Previously, we would give up completely on these. Instead, in cases where we know something about the low-order bits of the shift-amount operand, we can combine (and together) the associated restrictions for all shift amounts consistent with that knowledge. As a further generalization, I refactored all of the logic for all three kinds of shifts to have this capability. This works well in the above case, for example, because the dynamic shift amount can only be 0 or 1, and thus we can say a lot about the known bits of the result. This brings us to the second part of this change: Even when we know all of the bits of a value via computeKnownBits, nothing used to constant-fold the result. This introduces the necessary code into InstCombine and InstSimplify. I've added it into both because: 1. InstCombine won't automatically pick up the associated logic in InstSimplify (InstCombine uses InstSimplify, but not via the API that passes in the original instruction). 2. Putting the logic in InstCombine allows the resulting simplifications to become part of the iterative worklist 3. Putting the logic in InstSimplify allows the resulting simplifications to be used by everywhere else that calls SimplifyInstruction (inlining, unrolling, and many others). And this requires a small change to our definition of an ephemeral value so that we don't break the rest case from r246696 (where the icmp feeding the @llvm.assume, is also feeding a br). Under the old definition, the icmp would not be considered ephemeral (because it is used by the br), but this causes the assume to remove itself (in addition to simplifying the branch structure), and it seems more-useful to prevent that from happening. llvm-svn: 251146
2015-10-24 04:37:08 +08:00
}
case Instruction::LShr: {
// (ushr X, C1) & C2 == 0 iff (-1 >> C1) & C2 == 0
Handle non-constant shifts in computeKnownBits, and use computeKnownBits for constant folding in InstCombine/Simplify First, the motivation: LLVM currently does not realize that: ((2072 >> (L == 0)) >> 7) & 1 == 0 where L is some arbitrary value. Whether you right-shift 2072 by 7 or by 8, the lowest-order bit is always zero. There are obviously several ways to go about fixing this, but the generic solution pursued in this patch is to teach computeKnownBits something about shifts by a non-constant amount. Previously, we would give up completely on these. Instead, in cases where we know something about the low-order bits of the shift-amount operand, we can combine (and together) the associated restrictions for all shift amounts consistent with that knowledge. As a further generalization, I refactored all of the logic for all three kinds of shifts to have this capability. This works well in the above case, for example, because the dynamic shift amount can only be 0 or 1, and thus we can say a lot about the known bits of the result. This brings us to the second part of this change: Even when we know all of the bits of a value via computeKnownBits, nothing used to constant-fold the result. This introduces the necessary code into InstCombine and InstSimplify. I've added it into both because: 1. InstCombine won't automatically pick up the associated logic in InstSimplify (InstCombine uses InstSimplify, but not via the API that passes in the original instruction). 2. Putting the logic in InstCombine allows the resulting simplifications to become part of the iterative worklist 3. Putting the logic in InstSimplify allows the resulting simplifications to be used by everywhere else that calls SimplifyInstruction (inlining, unrolling, and many others). And this requires a small change to our definition of an ephemeral value so that we don't break the rest case from r246696 (where the icmp feeding the @llvm.assume, is also feeding a br). Under the old definition, the icmp would not be considered ephemeral (because it is used by the br), but this causes the assume to remove itself (in addition to simplifying the branch structure), and it seems more-useful to prevent that from happening. llvm-svn: 251146
2015-10-24 04:37:08 +08:00
auto KZF = [BitWidth](const APInt &KnownZero, unsigned ShiftAmt) {
return APIntOps::lshr(KnownZero, ShiftAmt) |
// High bits known zero.
APInt::getHighBitsSet(BitWidth, ShiftAmt);
};
auto KOF = [](const APInt &KnownOne, unsigned ShiftAmt) {
Handle non-constant shifts in computeKnownBits, and use computeKnownBits for constant folding in InstCombine/Simplify First, the motivation: LLVM currently does not realize that: ((2072 >> (L == 0)) >> 7) & 1 == 0 where L is some arbitrary value. Whether you right-shift 2072 by 7 or by 8, the lowest-order bit is always zero. There are obviously several ways to go about fixing this, but the generic solution pursued in this patch is to teach computeKnownBits something about shifts by a non-constant amount. Previously, we would give up completely on these. Instead, in cases where we know something about the low-order bits of the shift-amount operand, we can combine (and together) the associated restrictions for all shift amounts consistent with that knowledge. As a further generalization, I refactored all of the logic for all three kinds of shifts to have this capability. This works well in the above case, for example, because the dynamic shift amount can only be 0 or 1, and thus we can say a lot about the known bits of the result. This brings us to the second part of this change: Even when we know all of the bits of a value via computeKnownBits, nothing used to constant-fold the result. This introduces the necessary code into InstCombine and InstSimplify. I've added it into both because: 1. InstCombine won't automatically pick up the associated logic in InstSimplify (InstCombine uses InstSimplify, but not via the API that passes in the original instruction). 2. Putting the logic in InstCombine allows the resulting simplifications to become part of the iterative worklist 3. Putting the logic in InstSimplify allows the resulting simplifications to be used by everywhere else that calls SimplifyInstruction (inlining, unrolling, and many others). And this requires a small change to our definition of an ephemeral value so that we don't break the rest case from r246696 (where the icmp feeding the @llvm.assume, is also feeding a br). Under the old definition, the icmp would not be considered ephemeral (because it is used by the br), but this causes the assume to remove itself (in addition to simplifying the branch structure), and it seems more-useful to prevent that from happening. llvm-svn: 251146
2015-10-24 04:37:08 +08:00
return APIntOps::lshr(KnownOne, ShiftAmt);
};
computeKnownBitsFromShiftOperator(I, KnownZero, KnownOne,
KnownZero2, KnownOne2, Depth, Q, KZF,
KOF);
break;
Handle non-constant shifts in computeKnownBits, and use computeKnownBits for constant folding in InstCombine/Simplify First, the motivation: LLVM currently does not realize that: ((2072 >> (L == 0)) >> 7) & 1 == 0 where L is some arbitrary value. Whether you right-shift 2072 by 7 or by 8, the lowest-order bit is always zero. There are obviously several ways to go about fixing this, but the generic solution pursued in this patch is to teach computeKnownBits something about shifts by a non-constant amount. Previously, we would give up completely on these. Instead, in cases where we know something about the low-order bits of the shift-amount operand, we can combine (and together) the associated restrictions for all shift amounts consistent with that knowledge. As a further generalization, I refactored all of the logic for all three kinds of shifts to have this capability. This works well in the above case, for example, because the dynamic shift amount can only be 0 or 1, and thus we can say a lot about the known bits of the result. This brings us to the second part of this change: Even when we know all of the bits of a value via computeKnownBits, nothing used to constant-fold the result. This introduces the necessary code into InstCombine and InstSimplify. I've added it into both because: 1. InstCombine won't automatically pick up the associated logic in InstSimplify (InstCombine uses InstSimplify, but not via the API that passes in the original instruction). 2. Putting the logic in InstCombine allows the resulting simplifications to become part of the iterative worklist 3. Putting the logic in InstSimplify allows the resulting simplifications to be used by everywhere else that calls SimplifyInstruction (inlining, unrolling, and many others). And this requires a small change to our definition of an ephemeral value so that we don't break the rest case from r246696 (where the icmp feeding the @llvm.assume, is also feeding a br). Under the old definition, the icmp would not be considered ephemeral (because it is used by the br), but this causes the assume to remove itself (in addition to simplifying the branch structure), and it seems more-useful to prevent that from happening. llvm-svn: 251146
2015-10-24 04:37:08 +08:00
}
case Instruction::AShr: {
// (ashr X, C1) & C2 == 0 iff (-1 >> C1) & C2 == 0
auto KZF = [](const APInt &KnownZero, unsigned ShiftAmt) {
Handle non-constant shifts in computeKnownBits, and use computeKnownBits for constant folding in InstCombine/Simplify First, the motivation: LLVM currently does not realize that: ((2072 >> (L == 0)) >> 7) & 1 == 0 where L is some arbitrary value. Whether you right-shift 2072 by 7 or by 8, the lowest-order bit is always zero. There are obviously several ways to go about fixing this, but the generic solution pursued in this patch is to teach computeKnownBits something about shifts by a non-constant amount. Previously, we would give up completely on these. Instead, in cases where we know something about the low-order bits of the shift-amount operand, we can combine (and together) the associated restrictions for all shift amounts consistent with that knowledge. As a further generalization, I refactored all of the logic for all three kinds of shifts to have this capability. This works well in the above case, for example, because the dynamic shift amount can only be 0 or 1, and thus we can say a lot about the known bits of the result. This brings us to the second part of this change: Even when we know all of the bits of a value via computeKnownBits, nothing used to constant-fold the result. This introduces the necessary code into InstCombine and InstSimplify. I've added it into both because: 1. InstCombine won't automatically pick up the associated logic in InstSimplify (InstCombine uses InstSimplify, but not via the API that passes in the original instruction). 2. Putting the logic in InstCombine allows the resulting simplifications to become part of the iterative worklist 3. Putting the logic in InstSimplify allows the resulting simplifications to be used by everywhere else that calls SimplifyInstruction (inlining, unrolling, and many others). And this requires a small change to our definition of an ephemeral value so that we don't break the rest case from r246696 (where the icmp feeding the @llvm.assume, is also feeding a br). Under the old definition, the icmp would not be considered ephemeral (because it is used by the br), but this causes the assume to remove itself (in addition to simplifying the branch structure), and it seems more-useful to prevent that from happening. llvm-svn: 251146
2015-10-24 04:37:08 +08:00
return APIntOps::ashr(KnownZero, ShiftAmt);
};
auto KOF = [](const APInt &KnownOne, unsigned ShiftAmt) {
Handle non-constant shifts in computeKnownBits, and use computeKnownBits for constant folding in InstCombine/Simplify First, the motivation: LLVM currently does not realize that: ((2072 >> (L == 0)) >> 7) & 1 == 0 where L is some arbitrary value. Whether you right-shift 2072 by 7 or by 8, the lowest-order bit is always zero. There are obviously several ways to go about fixing this, but the generic solution pursued in this patch is to teach computeKnownBits something about shifts by a non-constant amount. Previously, we would give up completely on these. Instead, in cases where we know something about the low-order bits of the shift-amount operand, we can combine (and together) the associated restrictions for all shift amounts consistent with that knowledge. As a further generalization, I refactored all of the logic for all three kinds of shifts to have this capability. This works well in the above case, for example, because the dynamic shift amount can only be 0 or 1, and thus we can say a lot about the known bits of the result. This brings us to the second part of this change: Even when we know all of the bits of a value via computeKnownBits, nothing used to constant-fold the result. This introduces the necessary code into InstCombine and InstSimplify. I've added it into both because: 1. InstCombine won't automatically pick up the associated logic in InstSimplify (InstCombine uses InstSimplify, but not via the API that passes in the original instruction). 2. Putting the logic in InstCombine allows the resulting simplifications to become part of the iterative worklist 3. Putting the logic in InstSimplify allows the resulting simplifications to be used by everywhere else that calls SimplifyInstruction (inlining, unrolling, and many others). And this requires a small change to our definition of an ephemeral value so that we don't break the rest case from r246696 (where the icmp feeding the @llvm.assume, is also feeding a br). Under the old definition, the icmp would not be considered ephemeral (because it is used by the br), but this causes the assume to remove itself (in addition to simplifying the branch structure), and it seems more-useful to prevent that from happening. llvm-svn: 251146
2015-10-24 04:37:08 +08:00
return APIntOps::ashr(KnownOne, ShiftAmt);
};
computeKnownBitsFromShiftOperator(I, KnownZero, KnownOne,
KnownZero2, KnownOne2, Depth, Q, KZF,
KOF);
break;
Handle non-constant shifts in computeKnownBits, and use computeKnownBits for constant folding in InstCombine/Simplify First, the motivation: LLVM currently does not realize that: ((2072 >> (L == 0)) >> 7) & 1 == 0 where L is some arbitrary value. Whether you right-shift 2072 by 7 or by 8, the lowest-order bit is always zero. There are obviously several ways to go about fixing this, but the generic solution pursued in this patch is to teach computeKnownBits something about shifts by a non-constant amount. Previously, we would give up completely on these. Instead, in cases where we know something about the low-order bits of the shift-amount operand, we can combine (and together) the associated restrictions for all shift amounts consistent with that knowledge. As a further generalization, I refactored all of the logic for all three kinds of shifts to have this capability. This works well in the above case, for example, because the dynamic shift amount can only be 0 or 1, and thus we can say a lot about the known bits of the result. This brings us to the second part of this change: Even when we know all of the bits of a value via computeKnownBits, nothing used to constant-fold the result. This introduces the necessary code into InstCombine and InstSimplify. I've added it into both because: 1. InstCombine won't automatically pick up the associated logic in InstSimplify (InstCombine uses InstSimplify, but not via the API that passes in the original instruction). 2. Putting the logic in InstCombine allows the resulting simplifications to become part of the iterative worklist 3. Putting the logic in InstSimplify allows the resulting simplifications to be used by everywhere else that calls SimplifyInstruction (inlining, unrolling, and many others). And this requires a small change to our definition of an ephemeral value so that we don't break the rest case from r246696 (where the icmp feeding the @llvm.assume, is also feeding a br). Under the old definition, the icmp would not be considered ephemeral (because it is used by the br), but this causes the assume to remove itself (in addition to simplifying the branch structure), and it seems more-useful to prevent that from happening. llvm-svn: 251146
2015-10-24 04:37:08 +08:00
}
case Instruction::Sub: {
bool NSW = cast<OverflowingBinaryOperator>(I)->hasNoSignedWrap();
computeKnownBitsAddSub(false, I->getOperand(0), I->getOperand(1), NSW,
KnownZero, KnownOne, KnownZero2, KnownOne2, Depth,
Q);
break;
}
case Instruction::Add: {
bool NSW = cast<OverflowingBinaryOperator>(I)->hasNoSignedWrap();
computeKnownBitsAddSub(true, I->getOperand(0), I->getOperand(1), NSW,
KnownZero, KnownOne, KnownZero2, KnownOne2, Depth,
Q);
break;
}
case Instruction::SRem:
if (ConstantInt *Rem = dyn_cast<ConstantInt>(I->getOperand(1))) {
APInt RA = Rem->getValue().abs();
if (RA.isPowerOf2()) {
APInt LowBits = RA - 1;
computeKnownBits(I->getOperand(0), KnownZero2, KnownOne2, Depth + 1,
Q);
// The low bits of the first operand are unchanged by the srem.
KnownZero = KnownZero2 & LowBits;
KnownOne = KnownOne2 & LowBits;
// If the first operand is non-negative or has all low bits zero, then
// the upper bits are all zero.
if (KnownZero2.isNegative() || ((KnownZero2 & LowBits) == LowBits))
KnownZero |= ~LowBits;
// If the first operand is negative and not all low bits are zero, then
// the upper bits are all one.
if (KnownOne2.isNegative() && ((KnownOne2 & LowBits) != 0))
KnownOne |= ~LowBits;
assert((KnownZero & KnownOne) == 0 && "Bits known to be one AND zero?");
}
}
// The sign bit is the LHS's sign bit, except when the result of the
// remainder is zero.
if (KnownZero.isNonNegative()) {
APInt LHSKnownZero(BitWidth, 0), LHSKnownOne(BitWidth, 0);
computeKnownBits(I->getOperand(0), LHSKnownZero, LHSKnownOne, Depth + 1,
Q);
// If it's known zero, our sign bit is also zero.
if (LHSKnownZero.isNegative())
KnownZero.setSignBit();
}
break;
case Instruction::URem: {
if (ConstantInt *Rem = dyn_cast<ConstantInt>(I->getOperand(1))) {
const APInt &RA = Rem->getValue();
if (RA.isPowerOf2()) {
APInt LowBits = (RA - 1);
computeKnownBits(I->getOperand(0), KnownZero, KnownOne, Depth + 1, Q);
KnownZero |= ~LowBits;
KnownOne &= LowBits;
break;
}
}
// Since the result is less than or equal to either operand, any leading
// zero bits in either operand must also exist in the result.
computeKnownBits(I->getOperand(0), KnownZero, KnownOne, Depth + 1, Q);
computeKnownBits(I->getOperand(1), KnownZero2, KnownOne2, Depth + 1, Q);
unsigned Leaders = std::max(KnownZero.countLeadingOnes(),
KnownZero2.countLeadingOnes());
KnownOne.clearAllBits();
KnownZero.clearAllBits();
KnownZero.setHighBits(Leaders);
break;
}
case Instruction::Alloca: {
const AllocaInst *AI = cast<AllocaInst>(I);
unsigned Align = AI->getAlignment();
if (Align == 0)
Align = Q.DL.getABITypeAlignment(AI->getAllocatedType());
if (Align > 0)
KnownZero.setLowBits(countTrailingZeros(Align));
break;
}
case Instruction::GetElementPtr: {
// Analyze all of the subscripts of this getelementptr instruction
// to determine if we can prove known low zero bits.
APInt LocalKnownZero(BitWidth, 0), LocalKnownOne(BitWidth, 0);
computeKnownBits(I->getOperand(0), LocalKnownZero, LocalKnownOne, Depth + 1,
Q);
unsigned TrailZ = LocalKnownZero.countTrailingOnes();
gep_type_iterator GTI = gep_type_begin(I);
for (unsigned i = 1, e = I->getNumOperands(); i != e; ++i, ++GTI) {
Value *Index = I->getOperand(i);
if (StructType *STy = GTI.getStructTypeOrNull()) {
// Handle struct member offset arithmetic.
// Handle case when index is vector zeroinitializer
Constant *CIndex = cast<Constant>(Index);
if (CIndex->isZeroValue())
continue;
if (CIndex->getType()->isVectorTy())
Index = CIndex->getSplatValue();
unsigned Idx = cast<ConstantInt>(Index)->getZExtValue();
const StructLayout *SL = Q.DL.getStructLayout(STy);
uint64_t Offset = SL->getElementOffset(Idx);
TrailZ = std::min<unsigned>(TrailZ,
countTrailingZeros(Offset));
} else {
// Handle array index arithmetic.
Type *IndexedTy = GTI.getIndexedType();
if (!IndexedTy->isSized()) {
TrailZ = 0;
break;
}
unsigned GEPOpiBits = Index->getType()->getScalarSizeInBits();
uint64_t TypeSize = Q.DL.getTypeAllocSize(IndexedTy);
LocalKnownZero = LocalKnownOne = APInt(GEPOpiBits, 0);
computeKnownBits(Index, LocalKnownZero, LocalKnownOne, Depth + 1, Q);
TrailZ = std::min(TrailZ,
unsigned(countTrailingZeros(TypeSize) +
LocalKnownZero.countTrailingOnes()));
}
}
KnownZero.setLowBits(TrailZ);
break;
}
case Instruction::PHI: {
const PHINode *P = cast<PHINode>(I);
// Handle the case of a simple two-predecessor recurrence PHI.
// There's a lot more that could theoretically be done here, but
// this is sufficient to catch some interesting cases.
if (P->getNumIncomingValues() == 2) {
for (unsigned i = 0; i != 2; ++i) {
Value *L = P->getIncomingValue(i);
Value *R = P->getIncomingValue(!i);
Operator *LU = dyn_cast<Operator>(L);
if (!LU)
continue;
unsigned Opcode = LU->getOpcode();
// Check for operations that have the property that if
// both their operands have low zero bits, the result
// will have low zero bits.
if (Opcode == Instruction::Add ||
Opcode == Instruction::Sub ||
Opcode == Instruction::And ||
Opcode == Instruction::Or ||
Opcode == Instruction::Mul) {
Value *LL = LU->getOperand(0);
Value *LR = LU->getOperand(1);
// Find a recurrence.
if (LL == I)
L = LR;
else if (LR == I)
L = LL;
else
break;
// Ok, we have a PHI of the form L op= R. Check for low
// zero bits.
computeKnownBits(R, KnownZero2, KnownOne2, Depth + 1, Q);
// We need to take the minimum number of known bits
APInt KnownZero3(KnownZero), KnownOne3(KnownOne);
computeKnownBits(L, KnownZero3, KnownOne3, Depth + 1, Q);
KnownZero.setLowBits(std::min(KnownZero2.countTrailingOnes(),
KnownZero3.countTrailingOnes()));
if (DontImproveNonNegativePhiBits)
break;
auto *OverflowOp = dyn_cast<OverflowingBinaryOperator>(LU);
if (OverflowOp && OverflowOp->hasNoSignedWrap()) {
// If initial value of recurrence is nonnegative, and we are adding
// a nonnegative number with nsw, the result can only be nonnegative
// or poison value regardless of the number of times we execute the
// add in phi recurrence. If initial value is negative and we are
// adding a negative number with nsw, the result can only be
// negative or poison value. Similar arguments apply to sub and mul.
//
// (add non-negative, non-negative) --> non-negative
// (add negative, negative) --> negative
if (Opcode == Instruction::Add) {
if (KnownZero2.isNegative() && KnownZero3.isNegative())
KnownZero.setSignBit();
else if (KnownOne2.isNegative() && KnownOne3.isNegative())
KnownOne.setSignBit();
}
// (sub nsw non-negative, negative) --> non-negative
// (sub nsw negative, non-negative) --> negative
else if (Opcode == Instruction::Sub && LL == I) {
if (KnownZero2.isNegative() && KnownOne3.isNegative())
KnownZero.setSignBit();
else if (KnownOne2.isNegative() && KnownZero3.isNegative())
KnownOne.setSignBit();
}
// (mul nsw non-negative, non-negative) --> non-negative
else if (Opcode == Instruction::Mul && KnownZero2.isNegative() &&
KnownZero3.isNegative())
KnownZero.setSignBit();
}
break;
}
}
}
// Unreachable blocks may have zero-operand PHI nodes.
if (P->getNumIncomingValues() == 0)
break;
// Otherwise take the unions of the known bit sets of the operands,
// taking conservative care to avoid excessive recursion.
if (Depth < MaxDepth - 1 && !KnownZero && !KnownOne) {
// Skip if every incoming value references to ourself.
if (dyn_cast_or_null<UndefValue>(P->hasConstantValue()))
break;
KnownZero.setAllBits();
KnownOne.setAllBits();
for (Value *IncValue : P->incoming_values()) {
// Skip direct self references.
if (IncValue == P) continue;
KnownZero2 = APInt(BitWidth, 0);
KnownOne2 = APInt(BitWidth, 0);
// Recurse, but cap the recursion to one level, because we don't
// want to waste time spinning around in loops.
computeKnownBits(IncValue, KnownZero2, KnownOne2, MaxDepth - 1, Q);
KnownZero &= KnownZero2;
KnownOne &= KnownOne2;
// If all bits have been ruled out, there's no need to check
// more operands.
if (!KnownZero && !KnownOne)
break;
}
}
break;
}
case Instruction::Call:
case Instruction::Invoke:
// If range metadata is attached to this call, set known bits from that,
// and then intersect with known bits based on other properties of the
// function.
if (MDNode *MD = cast<Instruction>(I)->getMetadata(LLVMContext::MD_range))
computeKnownBitsFromRangeMetadata(*MD, KnownZero, KnownOne);
if (const Value *RV = ImmutableCallSite(I).getReturnedArgOperand()) {
computeKnownBits(RV, KnownZero2, KnownOne2, Depth + 1, Q);
KnownZero |= KnownZero2;
KnownOne |= KnownOne2;
}
if (const IntrinsicInst *II = dyn_cast<IntrinsicInst>(I)) {
switch (II->getIntrinsicID()) {
default: break;
case Intrinsic::bitreverse:
computeKnownBits(I->getOperand(0), KnownZero2, KnownOne2, Depth + 1, Q);
KnownZero |= KnownZero2.reverseBits();
KnownOne |= KnownOne2.reverseBits();
break;
case Intrinsic::bswap:
computeKnownBits(I->getOperand(0), KnownZero2, KnownOne2, Depth + 1, Q);
KnownZero |= KnownZero2.byteSwap();
KnownOne |= KnownOne2.byteSwap();
break;
case Intrinsic::ctlz:
case Intrinsic::cttz: {
unsigned LowBits = Log2_32(BitWidth)+1;
// If this call is undefined for 0, the result will be less than 2^n.
if (II->getArgOperand(1) == ConstantInt::getTrue(II->getContext()))
LowBits -= 1;
KnownZero.setBitsFrom(LowBits);
break;
}
case Intrinsic::ctpop: {
computeKnownBits(I->getOperand(0), KnownZero2, KnownOne2, Depth + 1, Q);
// We can bound the space the count needs. Also, bits known to be zero
// can't contribute to the population.
unsigned BitsPossiblySet = BitWidth - KnownZero2.countPopulation();
unsigned LeadingZeros =
APInt(BitWidth, BitsPossiblySet).countLeadingZeros();
assert(LeadingZeros <= BitWidth);
KnownZero.setHighBits(LeadingZeros);
KnownOne &= ~KnownZero;
// TODO: we could bound KnownOne using the lower bound on the number
// of bits which might be set provided by popcnt KnownOne2.
break;
}
case Intrinsic::x86_sse42_crc32_64_64:
KnownZero.setBitsFrom(32);
break;
}
}
break;
case Instruction::ExtractElement:
// Look through extract element. At the moment we keep this simple and skip
// tracking the specific element. But at least we might find information
// valid for all elements of the vector (for example if vector is sign
// extended, shifted, etc).
computeKnownBits(I->getOperand(0), KnownZero, KnownOne, Depth + 1, Q);
break;
case Instruction::ExtractValue:
if (IntrinsicInst *II = dyn_cast<IntrinsicInst>(I->getOperand(0))) {
const ExtractValueInst *EVI = cast<ExtractValueInst>(I);
if (EVI->getNumIndices() != 1) break;
if (EVI->getIndices()[0] == 0) {
switch (II->getIntrinsicID()) {
default: break;
case Intrinsic::uadd_with_overflow:
case Intrinsic::sadd_with_overflow:
computeKnownBitsAddSub(true, II->getArgOperand(0),
II->getArgOperand(1), false, KnownZero,
KnownOne, KnownZero2, KnownOne2, Depth, Q);
break;
case Intrinsic::usub_with_overflow:
case Intrinsic::ssub_with_overflow:
computeKnownBitsAddSub(false, II->getArgOperand(0),
II->getArgOperand(1), false, KnownZero,
KnownOne, KnownZero2, KnownOne2, Depth, Q);
break;
case Intrinsic::umul_with_overflow:
case Intrinsic::smul_with_overflow:
computeKnownBitsMul(II->getArgOperand(0), II->getArgOperand(1), false,
KnownZero, KnownOne, KnownZero2, KnownOne2, Depth,
Q);
break;
}
}
}
}
}
/// Determine which bits of V are known to be either zero or one and return
/// them in the KnownZero/KnownOne bit sets.
///
/// NOTE: we cannot consider 'undef' to be "IsZero" here. The problem is that
/// we cannot optimize based on the assumption that it is zero without changing
/// it to be an explicit zero. If we don't change it to zero, other code could
/// optimized based on the contradictory assumption that it is non-zero.
/// Because instcombine aggressively folds operations with undef args anyway,
/// this won't lose us code quality.
///
/// This function is defined on values with integer type, values with pointer
/// type, and vectors of integers. In the case
/// where V is a vector, known zero, and known one values are the
/// same width as the vector element, and the bit is set only if it is true
/// for all of the elements in the vector.
void computeKnownBits(const Value *V, APInt &KnownZero, APInt &KnownOne,
unsigned Depth, const Query &Q) {
assert(V && "No Value?");
assert(Depth <= MaxDepth && "Limit Search Depth");
unsigned BitWidth = KnownZero.getBitWidth();
assert((V->getType()->isIntOrIntVectorTy() ||
V->getType()->getScalarType()->isPointerTy()) &&
"Not integer or pointer type!");
assert((Q.DL.getTypeSizeInBits(V->getType()->getScalarType()) == BitWidth) &&
(!V->getType()->isIntOrIntVectorTy() ||
V->getType()->getScalarSizeInBits() == BitWidth) &&
KnownZero.getBitWidth() == BitWidth &&
KnownOne.getBitWidth() == BitWidth &&
"V, KnownOne and KnownZero should have same BitWidth");
(void)BitWidth;
const APInt *C;
if (match(V, m_APInt(C))) {
// We know all of the bits for a scalar constant or a splat vector constant!
KnownOne = *C;
KnownZero = ~KnownOne;
return;
}
// Null and aggregate-zero are all-zeros.
2016-05-24 01:57:54 +08:00
if (isa<ConstantPointerNull>(V) || isa<ConstantAggregateZero>(V)) {
KnownOne.clearAllBits();
KnownZero.setAllBits();
return;
}
// Handle a constant vector by taking the intersection of the known bits of
// each element.
if (const ConstantDataSequential *CDS = dyn_cast<ConstantDataSequential>(V)) {
// We know that CDS must be a vector of integers. Take the intersection of
// each element.
KnownZero.setAllBits(); KnownOne.setAllBits();
APInt Elt(KnownZero.getBitWidth(), 0);
for (unsigned i = 0, e = CDS->getNumElements(); i != e; ++i) {
Elt = CDS->getElementAsInteger(i);
KnownZero &= ~Elt;
KnownOne &= Elt;
}
return;
}
if (const auto *CV = dyn_cast<ConstantVector>(V)) {
// We know that CV must be a vector of integers. Take the intersection of
// each element.
KnownZero.setAllBits(); KnownOne.setAllBits();
APInt Elt(KnownZero.getBitWidth(), 0);
for (unsigned i = 0, e = CV->getNumOperands(); i != e; ++i) {
Constant *Element = CV->getAggregateElement(i);
auto *ElementCI = dyn_cast_or_null<ConstantInt>(Element);
if (!ElementCI) {
KnownZero.clearAllBits();
KnownOne.clearAllBits();
return;
}
Elt = ElementCI->getValue();
KnownZero &= ~Elt;
KnownOne &= Elt;
}
return;
}
// Start out not knowing anything.
KnownZero.clearAllBits(); KnownOne.clearAllBits();
// We can't imply anything about undefs.
if (isa<UndefValue>(V))
return;
// There's no point in looking through other users of ConstantData for
// assumptions. Confirm that we've handled them all.
assert(!isa<ConstantData>(V) && "Unhandled constant data!");
// Limit search depth.
// All recursive calls that increase depth must come after this.
if (Depth == MaxDepth)
return;
// A weak GlobalAlias is totally unknown. A non-weak GlobalAlias has
// the bits of its aliasee.
if (const GlobalAlias *GA = dyn_cast<GlobalAlias>(V)) {
Don't IPO over functions that can be de-refined Summary: Fixes PR26774. If you're aware of the issue, feel free to skip the "Motivation" section and jump directly to "This patch". Motivation: I define "refinement" as discarding behaviors from a program that the optimizer has license to discard. So transforming: ``` void f(unsigned x) { unsigned t = 5 / x; (void)t; } ``` to ``` void f(unsigned x) { } ``` is refinement, since the behavior went from "if x == 0 then undefined else nothing" to "nothing" (the optimizer has license to discard undefined behavior). Refinement is a fundamental aspect of many mid-level optimizations done by LLVM. For instance, transforming `x == (x + 1)` to `false` also involves refinement since the expression's value went from "if x is `undef` then { `true` or `false` } else { `false` }" to "`false`" (by definition, the optimizer has license to fold `undef` to any non-`undef` value). Unfortunately, refinement implies that the optimizer cannot assume that the implementation of a function it can see has all of the behavior an unoptimized or a differently optimized version of the same function can have. This is a problem for functions with comdat linkage, where a function can be replaced by an unoptimized or a differently optimized version of the same source level function. For instance, FunctionAttrs cannot assume a comdat function is actually `readnone` even if it does not have any loads or stores in it; since there may have been loads and stores in the "original function" that were refined out in the currently visible variant, and at the link step the linker may in fact choose an implementation with a load or a store. As an example, consider a function that does two atomic loads from the same memory location, and writes to memory only if the two values are not equal. The optimizer is allowed to refine this function by first CSE'ing the two loads, and the folding the comparision to always report that the two values are equal. Such a refined variant will look like it is `readonly`. However, the unoptimized version of the function can still write to memory (since the two loads //can// result in different values), and selecting the unoptimized version at link time will retroactively invalidate transforms we may have done under the assumption that the function does not write to memory. Note: this is not just a problem with atomics or with linking differently optimized object files. See PR26774 for more realistic examples that involved neither. This patch: This change introduces a new set of linkage types, predicated as `GlobalValue::mayBeDerefined` that returns true if the linkage type allows a function to be replaced by a differently optimized variant at link time. It then changes a set of IPO passes to bail out if they see such a function. Reviewers: chandlerc, hfinkel, dexonsmith, joker.eph, rnk Subscribers: mcrosier, llvm-commits Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D18634 llvm-svn: 265762
2016-04-08 08:48:30 +08:00
if (!GA->isInterposable())
computeKnownBits(GA->getAliasee(), KnownZero, KnownOne, Depth + 1, Q);
return;
}
if (const Operator *I = dyn_cast<Operator>(V))
computeKnownBitsFromOperator(I, KnownZero, KnownOne, Depth, Q);
2015-09-26 04:12:43 +08:00
// Aligned pointers have trailing zeros - refine KnownZero set
if (V->getType()->isPointerTy()) {
unsigned Align = V->getPointerAlignment(Q.DL);
if (Align)
KnownZero.setLowBits(countTrailingZeros(Align));
}
// computeKnownBitsFromAssume strictly refines KnownZero and
// KnownOne. Therefore, we run them after computeKnownBitsFromOperator.
// Check whether a nearby assume intrinsic can determine some known bits.
computeKnownBitsFromAssume(V, KnownZero, KnownOne, Depth, Q);
assert((KnownZero & KnownOne) == 0 && "Bits known to be one AND zero?");
}
/// Determine whether the sign bit is known to be zero or one.
/// Convenience wrapper around computeKnownBits.
void ComputeSignBit(const Value *V, bool &KnownZero, bool &KnownOne,
unsigned Depth, const Query &Q) {
unsigned BitWidth = getBitWidth(V->getType(), Q.DL);
if (!BitWidth) {
KnownZero = false;
KnownOne = false;
return;
}
APInt ZeroBits(BitWidth, 0);
APInt OneBits(BitWidth, 0);
computeKnownBits(V, ZeroBits, OneBits, Depth, Q);
KnownOne = OneBits.isNegative();
KnownZero = ZeroBits.isNegative();
}
/// Return true if the given value is known to have exactly one
/// bit set when defined. For vectors return true if every element is known to
/// be a power of two when defined. Supports values with integer or pointer
/// types and vectors of integers.
bool isKnownToBeAPowerOfTwo(const Value *V, bool OrZero, unsigned Depth,
const Query &Q) {
if (const Constant *C = dyn_cast<Constant>(V)) {
if (C->isNullValue())
return OrZero;
const APInt *ConstIntOrConstSplatInt;
if (match(C, m_APInt(ConstIntOrConstSplatInt)))
return ConstIntOrConstSplatInt->isPowerOf2();
}
// 1 << X is clearly a power of two if the one is not shifted off the end. If
// it is shifted off the end then the result is undefined.
if (match(V, m_Shl(m_One(), m_Value())))
return true;
// (signbit) >>l X is clearly a power of two if the one is not shifted off the
// bottom. If it is shifted off the bottom then the result is undefined.
if (match(V, m_LShr(m_SignBit(), m_Value())))
return true;
// The remaining tests are all recursive, so bail out if we hit the limit.
if (Depth++ == MaxDepth)
return false;
Value *X = nullptr, *Y = nullptr;
// A shift left or a logical shift right of a power of two is a power of two
// or zero.
if (OrZero && (match(V, m_Shl(m_Value(X), m_Value())) ||
match(V, m_LShr(m_Value(X), m_Value()))))
return isKnownToBeAPowerOfTwo(X, /*OrZero*/ true, Depth, Q);
if (const ZExtInst *ZI = dyn_cast<ZExtInst>(V))
return isKnownToBeAPowerOfTwo(ZI->getOperand(0), OrZero, Depth, Q);
if (const SelectInst *SI = dyn_cast<SelectInst>(V))
return isKnownToBeAPowerOfTwo(SI->getTrueValue(), OrZero, Depth, Q) &&
isKnownToBeAPowerOfTwo(SI->getFalseValue(), OrZero, Depth, Q);
if (OrZero && match(V, m_And(m_Value(X), m_Value(Y)))) {
// A power of two and'd with anything is a power of two or zero.
if (isKnownToBeAPowerOfTwo(X, /*OrZero*/ true, Depth, Q) ||
isKnownToBeAPowerOfTwo(Y, /*OrZero*/ true, Depth, Q))
return true;
// X & (-X) is always a power of two or zero.
if (match(X, m_Neg(m_Specific(Y))) || match(Y, m_Neg(m_Specific(X))))
return true;
return false;
}
// Adding a power-of-two or zero to the same power-of-two or zero yields
// either the original power-of-two, a larger power-of-two or zero.
if (match(V, m_Add(m_Value(X), m_Value(Y)))) {
const OverflowingBinaryOperator *VOBO = cast<OverflowingBinaryOperator>(V);
if (OrZero || VOBO->hasNoUnsignedWrap() || VOBO->hasNoSignedWrap()) {
if (match(X, m_And(m_Specific(Y), m_Value())) ||
match(X, m_And(m_Value(), m_Specific(Y))))
if (isKnownToBeAPowerOfTwo(Y, OrZero, Depth, Q))
return true;
if (match(Y, m_And(m_Specific(X), m_Value())) ||
match(Y, m_And(m_Value(), m_Specific(X))))
if (isKnownToBeAPowerOfTwo(X, OrZero, Depth, Q))
return true;
unsigned BitWidth = V->getType()->getScalarSizeInBits();
APInt LHSZeroBits(BitWidth, 0), LHSOneBits(BitWidth, 0);
computeKnownBits(X, LHSZeroBits, LHSOneBits, Depth, Q);
APInt RHSZeroBits(BitWidth, 0), RHSOneBits(BitWidth, 0);
computeKnownBits(Y, RHSZeroBits, RHSOneBits, Depth, Q);
// If i8 V is a power of two or zero:
// ZeroBits: 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1
// ~ZeroBits: 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
if ((~(LHSZeroBits & RHSZeroBits)).isPowerOf2())
// If OrZero isn't set, we cannot give back a zero result.
// Make sure either the LHS or RHS has a bit set.
if (OrZero || RHSOneBits.getBoolValue() || LHSOneBits.getBoolValue())
return true;
}
}
// An exact divide or right shift can only shift off zero bits, so the result
// is a power of two only if the first operand is a power of two and not
// copying a sign bit (sdiv int_min, 2).
if (match(V, m_Exact(m_LShr(m_Value(), m_Value()))) ||
match(V, m_Exact(m_UDiv(m_Value(), m_Value())))) {
Make use of @llvm.assume in ValueTracking (computeKnownBits, etc.) This change, which allows @llvm.assume to be used from within computeKnownBits (and other associated functions in ValueTracking), adds some (optional) parameters to computeKnownBits and friends. These functions now (optionally) take a "context" instruction pointer, an AssumptionTracker pointer, and also a DomTree pointer, and most of the changes are just to pass this new information when it is easily available from InstSimplify, InstCombine, etc. As explained below, the significant conceptual change is that known properties of a value might depend on the control-flow location of the use (because we care that the @llvm.assume dominates the use because assumptions have control-flow dependencies). This means that, when we ask if bits are known in a value, we might get different answers for different uses. The significant changes are all in ValueTracking. Two main changes: First, as with the rest of the code, new parameters need to be passed around. To make this easier, I grouped them into a structure, and I made internal static versions of the relevant functions that take this structure as a parameter. The new code does as you might expect, it looks for @llvm.assume calls that make use of the value we're trying to learn something about (often indirectly), attempts to pattern match that expression, and uses the result if successful. By making use of the AssumptionTracker, the process of finding @llvm.assume calls is not expensive. Part of the structure being passed around inside ValueTracking is a set of already-considered @llvm.assume calls. This is to prevent a query using, for example, the assume(a == b), to recurse on itself. The context and DT params are used to find applicable assumptions. An assumption needs to dominate the context instruction, or come after it deterministically. In this latter case we only handle the specific case where both the assumption and the context instruction are in the same block, and we need to exclude assumptions from being used to simplify their own ephemeral values (those which contribute only to the assumption) because otherwise the assumption would prove its feeding comparison trivial and would be removed. This commit adds the plumbing and the logic for a simple masked-bit propagation (just enough to write a regression test). Future commits add more patterns (and, correspondingly, more regression tests). llvm-svn: 217342
2014-09-08 02:57:58 +08:00
return isKnownToBeAPowerOfTwo(cast<Operator>(V)->getOperand(0), OrZero,
Depth, Q);
}
return false;
}
/// \brief Test whether a GEP's result is known to be non-null.
///
/// Uses properties inherent in a GEP to try to determine whether it is known
/// to be non-null.
///
/// Currently this routine does not support vector GEPs.
static bool isGEPKnownNonNull(const GEPOperator *GEP, unsigned Depth,
const Query &Q) {
if (!GEP->isInBounds() || GEP->getPointerAddressSpace() != 0)
return false;
// FIXME: Support vector-GEPs.
assert(GEP->getType()->isPointerTy() && "We only support plain pointer GEP");
// If the base pointer is non-null, we cannot walk to a null address with an
// inbounds GEP in address space zero.
if (isKnownNonZero(GEP->getPointerOperand(), Depth, Q))
return true;
// Walk the GEP operands and see if any operand introduces a non-zero offset.
// If so, then the GEP cannot produce a null pointer, as doing so would
// inherently violate the inbounds contract within address space zero.
for (gep_type_iterator GTI = gep_type_begin(GEP), GTE = gep_type_end(GEP);
GTI != GTE; ++GTI) {
// Struct types are easy -- they must always be indexed by a constant.
if (StructType *STy = GTI.getStructTypeOrNull()) {
ConstantInt *OpC = cast<ConstantInt>(GTI.getOperand());
unsigned ElementIdx = OpC->getZExtValue();
const StructLayout *SL = Q.DL.getStructLayout(STy);
uint64_t ElementOffset = SL->getElementOffset(ElementIdx);
if (ElementOffset > 0)
return true;
continue;
}
// If we have a zero-sized type, the index doesn't matter. Keep looping.
if (Q.DL.getTypeAllocSize(GTI.getIndexedType()) == 0)
continue;
// Fast path the constant operand case both for efficiency and so we don't
// increment Depth when just zipping down an all-constant GEP.
if (ConstantInt *OpC = dyn_cast<ConstantInt>(GTI.getOperand())) {
if (!OpC->isZero())
return true;
continue;
}
// We post-increment Depth here because while isKnownNonZero increments it
// as well, when we pop back up that increment won't persist. We don't want
// to recurse 10k times just because we have 10k GEP operands. We don't
// bail completely out because we want to handle constant GEPs regardless
// of depth.
if (Depth++ >= MaxDepth)
continue;
if (isKnownNonZero(GTI.getOperand(), Depth, Q))
return true;
}
return false;
}
/// Does the 'Range' metadata (which must be a valid MD_range operand list)
/// ensure that the value it's attached to is never Value? 'RangeType' is
/// is the type of the value described by the range.
static bool rangeMetadataExcludesValue(const MDNode* Ranges, const APInt& Value) {
const unsigned NumRanges = Ranges->getNumOperands() / 2;
assert(NumRanges >= 1);
for (unsigned i = 0; i < NumRanges; ++i) {
IR: Split Metadata from Value Split `Metadata` away from the `Value` class hierarchy, as part of PR21532. Assembly and bitcode changes are in the wings, but this is the bulk of the change for the IR C++ API. I have a follow-up patch prepared for `clang`. If this breaks other sub-projects, I apologize in advance :(. Help me compile it on Darwin I'll try to fix it. FWIW, the errors should be easy to fix, so it may be simpler to just fix it yourself. This breaks the build for all metadata-related code that's out-of-tree. Rest assured the transition is mechanical and the compiler should catch almost all of the problems. Here's a quick guide for updating your code: - `Metadata` is the root of a class hierarchy with three main classes: `MDNode`, `MDString`, and `ValueAsMetadata`. It is distinct from the `Value` class hierarchy. It is typeless -- i.e., instances do *not* have a `Type`. - `MDNode`'s operands are all `Metadata *` (instead of `Value *`). - `TrackingVH<MDNode>` and `WeakVH` referring to metadata can be replaced with `TrackingMDNodeRef` and `TrackingMDRef`, respectively. If you're referring solely to resolved `MDNode`s -- post graph construction -- just use `MDNode*`. - `MDNode` (and the rest of `Metadata`) have only limited support for `replaceAllUsesWith()`. As long as an `MDNode` is pointing at a forward declaration -- the result of `MDNode::getTemporary()` -- it maintains a side map of its uses and can RAUW itself. Once the forward declarations are fully resolved RAUW support is dropped on the ground. This means that uniquing collisions on changing operands cause nodes to become "distinct". (This already happened fairly commonly, whenever an operand went to null.) If you're constructing complex (non self-reference) `MDNode` cycles, you need to call `MDNode::resolveCycles()` on each node (or on a top-level node that somehow references all of the nodes). Also, don't do that. Metadata cycles (and the RAUW machinery needed to construct them) are expensive. - An `MDNode` can only refer to a `Constant` through a bridge called `ConstantAsMetadata` (one of the subclasses of `ValueAsMetadata`). As a side effect, accessing an operand of an `MDNode` that is known to be, e.g., `ConstantInt`, takes three steps: first, cast from `Metadata` to `ConstantAsMetadata`; second, extract the `Constant`; third, cast down to `ConstantInt`. The eventual goal is to introduce `MDInt`/`MDFloat`/etc. and have metadata schema owners transition away from using `Constant`s when the type isn't important (and they don't care about referring to `GlobalValue`s). In the meantime, I've added transitional API to the `mdconst` namespace that matches semantics with the old code, in order to avoid adding the error-prone three-step equivalent to every call site. If your old code was: MDNode *N = foo(); bar(isa <ConstantInt>(N->getOperand(0))); baz(cast <ConstantInt>(N->getOperand(1))); bak(cast_or_null <ConstantInt>(N->getOperand(2))); bat(dyn_cast <ConstantInt>(N->getOperand(3))); bay(dyn_cast_or_null<ConstantInt>(N->getOperand(4))); you can trivially match its semantics with: MDNode *N = foo(); bar(mdconst::hasa <ConstantInt>(N->getOperand(0))); baz(mdconst::extract <ConstantInt>(N->getOperand(1))); bak(mdconst::extract_or_null <ConstantInt>(N->getOperand(2))); bat(mdconst::dyn_extract <ConstantInt>(N->getOperand(3))); bay(mdconst::dyn_extract_or_null<ConstantInt>(N->getOperand(4))); and when you transition your metadata schema to `MDInt`: MDNode *N = foo(); bar(isa <MDInt>(N->getOperand(0))); baz(cast <MDInt>(N->getOperand(1))); bak(cast_or_null <MDInt>(N->getOperand(2))); bat(dyn_cast <MDInt>(N->getOperand(3))); bay(dyn_cast_or_null<MDInt>(N->getOperand(4))); - A `CallInst` -- specifically, intrinsic instructions -- can refer to metadata through a bridge called `MetadataAsValue`. This is a subclass of `Value` where `getType()->isMetadataTy()`. `MetadataAsValue` is the *only* class that can legally refer to a `LocalAsMetadata`, which is a bridged form of non-`Constant` values like `Argument` and `Instruction`. It can also refer to any other `Metadata` subclass. (I'll break all your testcases in a follow-up commit, when I propagate this change to assembly.) llvm-svn: 223802
2014-12-10 02:38:53 +08:00
ConstantInt *Lower =
mdconst::extract<ConstantInt>(Ranges->getOperand(2 * i + 0));
ConstantInt *Upper =
mdconst::extract<ConstantInt>(Ranges->getOperand(2 * i + 1));
ConstantRange Range(Lower->getValue(), Upper->getValue());
if (Range.contains(Value))
return false;
}
return true;
}
/// Return true if the given value is known to be non-zero when defined. For
/// vectors, return true if every element is known to be non-zero when
/// defined. For pointers, if the context instruction and dominator tree are
/// specified, perform context-sensitive analysis and return true if the
/// pointer couldn't possibly be null at the specified instruction.
/// Supports values with integer or pointer type and vectors of integers.
bool isKnownNonZero(const Value *V, unsigned Depth, const Query &Q) {
if (auto *C = dyn_cast<Constant>(V)) {
if (C->isNullValue())
return false;
if (isa<ConstantInt>(C))
// Must be non-zero due to null test above.
return true;
// For constant vectors, check that all elements are undefined or known
// non-zero to determine that the whole vector is known non-zero.
if (auto *VecTy = dyn_cast<VectorType>(C->getType())) {
for (unsigned i = 0, e = VecTy->getNumElements(); i != e; ++i) {
Constant *Elt = C->getAggregateElement(i);
if (!Elt || Elt->isNullValue())
return false;
if (!isa<UndefValue>(Elt) && !isa<ConstantInt>(Elt))
return false;
}
return true;
}
return false;
}
if (auto *I = dyn_cast<Instruction>(V)) {
if (MDNode *Ranges = I->getMetadata(LLVMContext::MD_range)) {
// If the possible ranges don't contain zero, then the value is
// definitely non-zero.
if (auto *Ty = dyn_cast<IntegerType>(V->getType())) {
const APInt ZeroValue(Ty->getBitWidth(), 0);
if (rangeMetadataExcludesValue(Ranges, ZeroValue))
return true;
}
}
}
// The remaining tests are all recursive, so bail out if we hit the limit.
if (Depth++ >= MaxDepth)
return false;
// Check for pointer simplifications.
if (V->getType()->isPointerTy()) {
if (isKnownNonNullAt(V, Q.CxtI, Q.DT))
return true;
if (const GEPOperator *GEP = dyn_cast<GEPOperator>(V))
if (isGEPKnownNonNull(GEP, Depth, Q))
return true;
}
unsigned BitWidth = getBitWidth(V->getType()->getScalarType(), Q.DL);
// X | Y != 0 if X != 0 or Y != 0.
Value *X = nullptr, *Y = nullptr;
if (match(V, m_Or(m_Value(X), m_Value(Y))))
return isKnownNonZero(X, Depth, Q) || isKnownNonZero(Y, Depth, Q);
// ext X != 0 if X != 0.
if (isa<SExtInst>(V) || isa<ZExtInst>(V))
return isKnownNonZero(cast<Instruction>(V)->getOperand(0), Depth, Q);
// shl X, Y != 0 if X is odd. Note that the value of the shift is undefined
// if the lowest bit is shifted off the end.
if (BitWidth && match(V, m_Shl(m_Value(X), m_Value(Y)))) {
// shl nuw can't remove any non-zero bits.
const OverflowingBinaryOperator *BO = cast<OverflowingBinaryOperator>(V);
if (BO->hasNoUnsignedWrap())
return isKnownNonZero(X, Depth, Q);
APInt KnownZero(BitWidth, 0);
APInt KnownOne(BitWidth, 0);
computeKnownBits(X, KnownZero, KnownOne, Depth, Q);
if (KnownOne[0])
return true;
}
// shr X, Y != 0 if X is negative. Note that the value of the shift is not
// defined if the sign bit is shifted off the end.
else if (match(V, m_Shr(m_Value(X), m_Value(Y)))) {
// shr exact can only shift out zero bits.
const PossiblyExactOperator *BO = cast<PossiblyExactOperator>(V);
if (BO->isExact())
return isKnownNonZero(X, Depth, Q);
bool XKnownNonNegative, XKnownNegative;
ComputeSignBit(X, XKnownNonNegative, XKnownNegative, Depth, Q);
if (XKnownNegative)
return true;
// If the shifter operand is a constant, and all of the bits shifted
// out are known to be zero, and X is known non-zero then at least one
// non-zero bit must remain.
if (ConstantInt *Shift = dyn_cast<ConstantInt>(Y)) {
APInt KnownZero(BitWidth, 0);
APInt KnownOne(BitWidth, 0);
computeKnownBits(X, KnownZero, KnownOne, Depth, Q);
auto ShiftVal = Shift->getLimitedValue(BitWidth - 1);
// Is there a known one in the portion not shifted out?
if (KnownOne.countLeadingZeros() < BitWidth - ShiftVal)
return true;
// Are all the bits to be shifted out known zero?
if (KnownZero.countTrailingOnes() >= ShiftVal)
return isKnownNonZero(X, Depth, Q);
}
}
// div exact can only produce a zero if the dividend is zero.
else if (match(V, m_Exact(m_IDiv(m_Value(X), m_Value())))) {
return isKnownNonZero(X, Depth, Q);
}
// X + Y.
else if (match(V, m_Add(m_Value(X), m_Value(Y)))) {
bool XKnownNonNegative, XKnownNegative;
bool YKnownNonNegative, YKnownNegative;
ComputeSignBit(X, XKnownNonNegative, XKnownNegative, Depth, Q);
ComputeSignBit(Y, YKnownNonNegative, YKnownNegative, Depth, Q);
// If X and Y are both non-negative (as signed values) then their sum is not
// zero unless both X and Y are zero.
if (XKnownNonNegative && YKnownNonNegative)
if (isKnownNonZero(X, Depth, Q) || isKnownNonZero(Y, Depth, Q))
return true;
// If X and Y are both negative (as signed values) then their sum is not
// zero unless both X and Y equal INT_MIN.
if (BitWidth && XKnownNegative && YKnownNegative) {
APInt KnownZero(BitWidth, 0);
APInt KnownOne(BitWidth, 0);
APInt Mask = APInt::getSignedMaxValue(BitWidth);
// The sign bit of X is set. If some other bit is set then X is not equal
// to INT_MIN.
computeKnownBits(X, KnownZero, KnownOne, Depth, Q);
if ((KnownOne & Mask) != 0)
return true;
// The sign bit of Y is set. If some other bit is set then Y is not equal
// to INT_MIN.
computeKnownBits(Y, KnownZero, KnownOne, Depth, Q);
if ((KnownOne & Mask) != 0)
return true;
}
// The sum of a non-negative number and a power of two is not zero.
Make use of @llvm.assume in ValueTracking (computeKnownBits, etc.) This change, which allows @llvm.assume to be used from within computeKnownBits (and other associated functions in ValueTracking), adds some (optional) parameters to computeKnownBits and friends. These functions now (optionally) take a "context" instruction pointer, an AssumptionTracker pointer, and also a DomTree pointer, and most of the changes are just to pass this new information when it is easily available from InstSimplify, InstCombine, etc. As explained below, the significant conceptual change is that known properties of a value might depend on the control-flow location of the use (because we care that the @llvm.assume dominates the use because assumptions have control-flow dependencies). This means that, when we ask if bits are known in a value, we might get different answers for different uses. The significant changes are all in ValueTracking. Two main changes: First, as with the rest of the code, new parameters need to be passed around. To make this easier, I grouped them into a structure, and I made internal static versions of the relevant functions that take this structure as a parameter. The new code does as you might expect, it looks for @llvm.assume calls that make use of the value we're trying to learn something about (often indirectly), attempts to pattern match that expression, and uses the result if successful. By making use of the AssumptionTracker, the process of finding @llvm.assume calls is not expensive. Part of the structure being passed around inside ValueTracking is a set of already-considered @llvm.assume calls. This is to prevent a query using, for example, the assume(a == b), to recurse on itself. The context and DT params are used to find applicable assumptions. An assumption needs to dominate the context instruction, or come after it deterministically. In this latter case we only handle the specific case where both the assumption and the context instruction are in the same block, and we need to exclude assumptions from being used to simplify their own ephemeral values (those which contribute only to the assumption) because otherwise the assumption would prove its feeding comparison trivial and would be removed. This commit adds the plumbing and the logic for a simple masked-bit propagation (just enough to write a regression test). Future commits add more patterns (and, correspondingly, more regression tests). llvm-svn: 217342
2014-09-08 02:57:58 +08:00
if (XKnownNonNegative &&
isKnownToBeAPowerOfTwo(Y, /*OrZero*/ false, Depth, Q))
return true;
Make use of @llvm.assume in ValueTracking (computeKnownBits, etc.) This change, which allows @llvm.assume to be used from within computeKnownBits (and other associated functions in ValueTracking), adds some (optional) parameters to computeKnownBits and friends. These functions now (optionally) take a "context" instruction pointer, an AssumptionTracker pointer, and also a DomTree pointer, and most of the changes are just to pass this new information when it is easily available from InstSimplify, InstCombine, etc. As explained below, the significant conceptual change is that known properties of a value might depend on the control-flow location of the use (because we care that the @llvm.assume dominates the use because assumptions have control-flow dependencies). This means that, when we ask if bits are known in a value, we might get different answers for different uses. The significant changes are all in ValueTracking. Two main changes: First, as with the rest of the code, new parameters need to be passed around. To make this easier, I grouped them into a structure, and I made internal static versions of the relevant functions that take this structure as a parameter. The new code does as you might expect, it looks for @llvm.assume calls that make use of the value we're trying to learn something about (often indirectly), attempts to pattern match that expression, and uses the result if successful. By making use of the AssumptionTracker, the process of finding @llvm.assume calls is not expensive. Part of the structure being passed around inside ValueTracking is a set of already-considered @llvm.assume calls. This is to prevent a query using, for example, the assume(a == b), to recurse on itself. The context and DT params are used to find applicable assumptions. An assumption needs to dominate the context instruction, or come after it deterministically. In this latter case we only handle the specific case where both the assumption and the context instruction are in the same block, and we need to exclude assumptions from being used to simplify their own ephemeral values (those which contribute only to the assumption) because otherwise the assumption would prove its feeding comparison trivial and would be removed. This commit adds the plumbing and the logic for a simple masked-bit propagation (just enough to write a regression test). Future commits add more patterns (and, correspondingly, more regression tests). llvm-svn: 217342
2014-09-08 02:57:58 +08:00
if (YKnownNonNegative &&
isKnownToBeAPowerOfTwo(X, /*OrZero*/ false, Depth, Q))
return true;
}
// X * Y.
else if (match(V, m_Mul(m_Value(X), m_Value(Y)))) {
const OverflowingBinaryOperator *BO = cast<OverflowingBinaryOperator>(V);
// If X and Y are non-zero then so is X * Y as long as the multiplication
// does not overflow.
if ((BO->hasNoSignedWrap() || BO->hasNoUnsignedWrap()) &&
isKnownNonZero(X, Depth, Q) && isKnownNonZero(Y, Depth, Q))
return true;
}
// (C ? X : Y) != 0 if X != 0 and Y != 0.
else if (const SelectInst *SI = dyn_cast<SelectInst>(V)) {
if (isKnownNonZero(SI->getTrueValue(), Depth, Q) &&
isKnownNonZero(SI->getFalseValue(), Depth, Q))
return true;
}
// PHI
else if (const PHINode *PN = dyn_cast<PHINode>(V)) {
// Try and detect a recurrence that monotonically increases from a
// starting value, as these are common as induction variables.
if (PN->getNumIncomingValues() == 2) {
Value *Start = PN->getIncomingValue(0);
Value *Induction = PN->getIncomingValue(1);
if (isa<ConstantInt>(Induction) && !isa<ConstantInt>(Start))
std::swap(Start, Induction);
if (ConstantInt *C = dyn_cast<ConstantInt>(Start)) {
if (!C->isZero() && !C->isNegative()) {
ConstantInt *X;
if ((match(Induction, m_NSWAdd(m_Specific(PN), m_ConstantInt(X))) ||
match(Induction, m_NUWAdd(m_Specific(PN), m_ConstantInt(X)))) &&
!X->isNegative())
return true;
}
}
}
// Check if all incoming values are non-zero constant.
bool AllNonZeroConstants = all_of(PN->operands(), [](Value *V) {
return isa<ConstantInt>(V) && !cast<ConstantInt>(V)->isZeroValue();
});
if (AllNonZeroConstants)
return true;
}
if (!BitWidth) return false;
APInt KnownZero(BitWidth, 0);
APInt KnownOne(BitWidth, 0);
computeKnownBits(V, KnownZero, KnownOne, Depth, Q);
return KnownOne != 0;
}
/// Return true if V2 == V1 + X, where X is known non-zero.
static bool isAddOfNonZero(const Value *V1, const Value *V2, const Query &Q) {
const BinaryOperator *BO = dyn_cast<BinaryOperator>(V1);
if (!BO || BO->getOpcode() != Instruction::Add)
return false;
Value *Op = nullptr;
if (V2 == BO->getOperand(0))
Op = BO->getOperand(1);
else if (V2 == BO->getOperand(1))
Op = BO->getOperand(0);
else
return false;
return isKnownNonZero(Op, 0, Q);
}
/// Return true if it is known that V1 != V2.
static bool isKnownNonEqual(const Value *V1, const Value *V2, const Query &Q) {
if (V1->getType()->isVectorTy() || V1 == V2)
return false;
if (V1->getType() != V2->getType())
// We can't look through casts yet.
return false;
if (isAddOfNonZero(V1, V2, Q) || isAddOfNonZero(V2, V1, Q))
return true;
if (IntegerType *Ty = dyn_cast<IntegerType>(V1->getType())) {
// Are any known bits in V1 contradictory to known bits in V2? If V1
// has a known zero where V2 has a known one, they must not be equal.
auto BitWidth = Ty->getBitWidth();
APInt KnownZero1(BitWidth, 0);
APInt KnownOne1(BitWidth, 0);
computeKnownBits(V1, KnownZero1, KnownOne1, 0, Q);
APInt KnownZero2(BitWidth, 0);
APInt KnownOne2(BitWidth, 0);
computeKnownBits(V2, KnownZero2, KnownOne2, 0, Q);
auto OppositeBits = (KnownZero1 & KnownOne2) | (KnownZero2 & KnownOne1);
if (OppositeBits.getBoolValue())
return true;
}
return false;
}
/// Return true if 'V & Mask' is known to be zero. We use this predicate to
/// simplify operations downstream. Mask is known to be zero for bits that V
/// cannot have.
///
/// This function is defined on values with integer type, values with pointer
/// type, and vectors of integers. In the case
/// where V is a vector, the mask, known zero, and known one values are the
/// same width as the vector element, and the bit is set only if it is true
/// for all of the elements in the vector.
bool MaskedValueIsZero(const Value *V, const APInt &Mask, unsigned Depth,
const Query &Q) {
APInt KnownZero(Mask.getBitWidth(), 0), KnownOne(Mask.getBitWidth(), 0);
computeKnownBits(V, KnownZero, KnownOne, Depth, Q);
return (KnownZero & Mask) == Mask;
}
/// For vector constants, loop over the elements and find the constant with the
/// minimum number of sign bits. Return 0 if the value is not a vector constant
/// or if any element was not analyzed; otherwise, return the count for the
/// element with the minimum number of sign bits.
static unsigned computeNumSignBitsVectorConstant(const Value *V,
unsigned TyBits) {
const auto *CV = dyn_cast<Constant>(V);
if (!CV || !CV->getType()->isVectorTy())
return 0;
unsigned MinSignBits = TyBits;
unsigned NumElts = CV->getType()->getVectorNumElements();
for (unsigned i = 0; i != NumElts; ++i) {
// If we find a non-ConstantInt, bail out.
auto *Elt = dyn_cast_or_null<ConstantInt>(CV->getAggregateElement(i));
if (!Elt)
return 0;
// If the sign bit is 1, flip the bits, so we always count leading zeros.
APInt EltVal = Elt->getValue();
if (EltVal.isNegative())
EltVal = ~EltVal;
MinSignBits = std::min(MinSignBits, EltVal.countLeadingZeros());
}
return MinSignBits;
}
static unsigned ComputeNumSignBitsImpl(const Value *V, unsigned Depth,
const Query &Q);
static unsigned ComputeNumSignBits(const Value *V, unsigned Depth,
const Query &Q) {
unsigned Result = ComputeNumSignBitsImpl(V, Depth, Q);
assert(Result > 0 && "At least one sign bit needs to be present!");
return Result;
}
/// Return the number of times the sign bit of the register is replicated into
/// the other bits. We know that at least 1 bit is always equal to the sign bit
/// (itself), but other cases can give us information. For example, immediately
/// after an "ashr X, 2", we know that the top 3 bits are all equal to each
/// other, so we return 3. For vectors, return the number of sign bits for the
/// vector element with the mininum number of known sign bits.
static unsigned ComputeNumSignBitsImpl(const Value *V, unsigned Depth,
const Query &Q) {
// We return the minimum number of sign bits that are guaranteed to be present
// in V, so for undef we have to conservatively return 1. We don't have the
// same behavior for poison though -- that's a FIXME today.
unsigned TyBits = Q.DL.getTypeSizeInBits(V->getType()->getScalarType());
unsigned Tmp, Tmp2;
unsigned FirstAnswer = 1;
// Note that ConstantInt is handled by the general computeKnownBits case
// below.
if (Depth == MaxDepth)
return 1; // Limit search depth.
const Operator *U = dyn_cast<Operator>(V);
switch (Operator::getOpcode(V)) {
default: break;
case Instruction::SExt:
Tmp = TyBits - U->getOperand(0)->getType()->getScalarSizeInBits();
return ComputeNumSignBits(U->getOperand(0), Depth + 1, Q) + Tmp;
case Instruction::SDiv: {
const APInt *Denominator;
// sdiv X, C -> adds log(C) sign bits.
if (match(U->getOperand(1), m_APInt(Denominator))) {
// Ignore non-positive denominator.
if (!Denominator->isStrictlyPositive())
break;
// Calculate the incoming numerator bits.
unsigned NumBits = ComputeNumSignBits(U->getOperand(0), Depth + 1, Q);
// Add floor(log(C)) bits to the numerator bits.
return std::min(TyBits, NumBits + Denominator->logBase2());
}
break;
}
case Instruction::SRem: {
const APInt *Denominator;
// srem X, C -> we know that the result is within [-C+1,C) when C is a
// positive constant. This let us put a lower bound on the number of sign
// bits.
if (match(U->getOperand(1), m_APInt(Denominator))) {
// Ignore non-positive denominator.
if (!Denominator->isStrictlyPositive())
break;
// Calculate the incoming numerator bits. SRem by a positive constant
// can't lower the number of sign bits.
unsigned NumrBits =
ComputeNumSignBits(U->getOperand(0), Depth + 1, Q);
// Calculate the leading sign bit constraints by examining the
// denominator. Given that the denominator is positive, there are two
// cases:
//
// 1. the numerator is positive. The result range is [0,C) and [0,C) u<
// (1 << ceilLogBase2(C)).
//
// 2. the numerator is negative. Then the result range is (-C,0] and
// integers in (-C,0] are either 0 or >u (-1 << ceilLogBase2(C)).
//
// Thus a lower bound on the number of sign bits is `TyBits -
// ceilLogBase2(C)`.
unsigned ResBits = TyBits - Denominator->ceilLogBase2();
return std::max(NumrBits, ResBits);
}
break;
}
case Instruction::AShr: {
Tmp = ComputeNumSignBits(U->getOperand(0), Depth + 1, Q);
// ashr X, C -> adds C sign bits. Vectors too.
const APInt *ShAmt;
if (match(U->getOperand(1), m_APInt(ShAmt))) {
unsigned ShAmtLimited = ShAmt->getZExtValue();
if (ShAmtLimited >= TyBits)
break; // Bad shift.
Tmp += ShAmtLimited;
if (Tmp > TyBits) Tmp = TyBits;
}
return Tmp;
}
case Instruction::Shl: {
const APInt *ShAmt;
if (match(U->getOperand(1), m_APInt(ShAmt))) {
// shl destroys sign bits.
Tmp = ComputeNumSignBits(U->getOperand(0), Depth + 1, Q);
Tmp2 = ShAmt->getZExtValue();
if (Tmp2 >= TyBits || // Bad shift.
Tmp2 >= Tmp) break; // Shifted all sign bits out.
return Tmp - Tmp2;
}
break;
}
case Instruction::And:
case Instruction::Or:
case Instruction::Xor: // NOT is handled here.
// Logical binary ops preserve the number of sign bits at the worst.
Tmp = ComputeNumSignBits(U->getOperand(0), Depth + 1, Q);
if (Tmp != 1) {
Tmp2 = ComputeNumSignBits(U->getOperand(1), Depth + 1, Q);
FirstAnswer = std::min(Tmp, Tmp2);
// We computed what we know about the sign bits as our first
// answer. Now proceed to the generic code that uses
// computeKnownBits, and pick whichever answer is better.
}
break;
case Instruction::Select:
Tmp = ComputeNumSignBits(U->getOperand(1), Depth + 1, Q);
if (Tmp == 1) return 1; // Early out.
Tmp2 = ComputeNumSignBits(U->getOperand(2), Depth + 1, Q);
return std::min(Tmp, Tmp2);
case Instruction::Add:
// Add can have at most one carry bit. Thus we know that the output
// is, at worst, one more bit than the inputs.
Tmp = ComputeNumSignBits(U->getOperand(0), Depth + 1, Q);
if (Tmp == 1) return 1; // Early out.
// Special case decrementing a value (ADD X, -1):
if (const auto *CRHS = dyn_cast<Constant>(U->getOperand(1)))
if (CRHS->isAllOnesValue()) {
APInt KnownZero(TyBits, 0), KnownOne(TyBits, 0);
computeKnownBits(U->getOperand(0), KnownZero, KnownOne, Depth + 1, Q);
// If the input is known to be 0 or 1, the output is 0/-1, which is all
// sign bits set.
if ((KnownZero | APInt(TyBits, 1)).isAllOnesValue())
return TyBits;
// If we are subtracting one from a positive number, there is no carry
// out of the result.
if (KnownZero.isNegative())
return Tmp;
}
Tmp2 = ComputeNumSignBits(U->getOperand(1), Depth + 1, Q);
if (Tmp2 == 1) return 1;
return std::min(Tmp, Tmp2)-1;
case Instruction::Sub:
Tmp2 = ComputeNumSignBits(U->getOperand(1), Depth + 1, Q);
if (Tmp2 == 1) return 1;
// Handle NEG.
if (const auto *CLHS = dyn_cast<Constant>(U->getOperand(0)))
if (CLHS->isNullValue()) {
APInt KnownZero(TyBits, 0), KnownOne(TyBits, 0);
computeKnownBits(U->getOperand(1), KnownZero, KnownOne, Depth + 1, Q);
// If the input is known to be 0 or 1, the output is 0/-1, which is all
// sign bits set.
if ((KnownZero | APInt(TyBits, 1)).isAllOnesValue())
return TyBits;
// If the input is known to be positive (the sign bit is known clear),
// the output of the NEG has the same number of sign bits as the input.
if (KnownZero.isNegative())
return Tmp2;
// Otherwise, we treat this like a SUB.
}
// Sub can have at most one carry bit. Thus we know that the output
// is, at worst, one more bit than the inputs.
Tmp = ComputeNumSignBits(U->getOperand(0), Depth + 1, Q);
if (Tmp == 1) return 1; // Early out.
return std::min(Tmp, Tmp2)-1;
case Instruction::PHI: {
const PHINode *PN = cast<PHINode>(U);
unsigned NumIncomingValues = PN->getNumIncomingValues();
// Don't analyze large in-degree PHIs.
if (NumIncomingValues > 4) break;
// Unreachable blocks may have zero-operand PHI nodes.
if (NumIncomingValues == 0) break;
// Take the minimum of all incoming values. This can't infinitely loop
// because of our depth threshold.
Tmp = ComputeNumSignBits(PN->getIncomingValue(0), Depth + 1, Q);
for (unsigned i = 1, e = NumIncomingValues; i != e; ++i) {
if (Tmp == 1) return Tmp;
Tmp = std::min(
Tmp, ComputeNumSignBits(PN->getIncomingValue(i), Depth + 1, Q));
}
return Tmp;
}
case Instruction::Trunc:
// FIXME: it's tricky to do anything useful for this, but it is an important
// case for targets like X86.
break;
case Instruction::ExtractElement:
// Look through extract element. At the moment we keep this simple and skip
// tracking the specific element. But at least we might find information
// valid for all elements of the vector (for example if vector is sign
// extended, shifted, etc).
return ComputeNumSignBits(U->getOperand(0), Depth + 1, Q);
}
// Finally, if we can prove that the top bits of the result are 0's or 1's,
// use this information.
// If we can examine all elements of a vector constant successfully, we're
// done (we can't do any better than that). If not, keep trying.
if (unsigned VecSignBits = computeNumSignBitsVectorConstant(V, TyBits))
return VecSignBits;
APInt KnownZero(TyBits, 0), KnownOne(TyBits, 0);
computeKnownBits(V, KnownZero, KnownOne, Depth, Q);
// If we know that the sign bit is either zero or one, determine the number of
// identical bits in the top of the input value.
if (KnownZero.isNegative())
return std::max(FirstAnswer, KnownZero.countLeadingOnes());
if (KnownOne.isNegative())
return std::max(FirstAnswer, KnownOne.countLeadingOnes());
// computeKnownBits gave us no extra information about the top bits.
return FirstAnswer;
}
/// This function computes the integer multiple of Base that equals V.
/// If successful, it returns true and returns the multiple in
/// Multiple. If unsuccessful, it returns false. It looks
/// through SExt instructions only if LookThroughSExt is true.
bool llvm::ComputeMultiple(Value *V, unsigned Base, Value *&Multiple,
bool LookThroughSExt, unsigned Depth) {
const unsigned MaxDepth = 6;
assert(V && "No Value?");
assert(Depth <= MaxDepth && "Limit Search Depth");
assert(V->getType()->isIntegerTy() && "Not integer or pointer type!");
Type *T = V->getType();
ConstantInt *CI = dyn_cast<ConstantInt>(V);
if (Base == 0)
return false;
if (Base == 1) {
Multiple = V;
return true;
}
ConstantExpr *CO = dyn_cast<ConstantExpr>(V);
Constant *BaseVal = ConstantInt::get(T, Base);
if (CO && CO == BaseVal) {
// Multiple is 1.
Multiple = ConstantInt::get(T, 1);
return true;
}
if (CI && CI->getZExtValue() % Base == 0) {
Multiple = ConstantInt::get(T, CI->getZExtValue() / Base);
return true;
}
if (Depth == MaxDepth) return false; // Limit search depth.
Operator *I = dyn_cast<Operator>(V);
if (!I) return false;
switch (I->getOpcode()) {
default: break;
case Instruction::SExt:
if (!LookThroughSExt) return false;
// otherwise fall through to ZExt
case Instruction::ZExt:
return ComputeMultiple(I->getOperand(0), Base, Multiple,
LookThroughSExt, Depth+1);
case Instruction::Shl:
case Instruction::Mul: {
Value *Op0 = I->getOperand(0);
Value *Op1 = I->getOperand(1);
if (I->getOpcode() == Instruction::Shl) {
ConstantInt *Op1CI = dyn_cast<ConstantInt>(Op1);
if (!Op1CI) return false;
// Turn Op0 << Op1 into Op0 * 2^Op1
APInt Op1Int = Op1CI->getValue();
uint64_t BitToSet = Op1Int.getLimitedValue(Op1Int.getBitWidth() - 1);
APInt API(Op1Int.getBitWidth(), 0);
API.setBit(BitToSet);
Op1 = ConstantInt::get(V->getContext(), API);
}
Value *Mul0 = nullptr;
if (ComputeMultiple(Op0, Base, Mul0, LookThroughSExt, Depth+1)) {
if (Constant *Op1C = dyn_cast<Constant>(Op1))
if (Constant *MulC = dyn_cast<Constant>(Mul0)) {
if (Op1C->getType()->getPrimitiveSizeInBits() <
MulC->getType()->getPrimitiveSizeInBits())
Op1C = ConstantExpr::getZExt(Op1C, MulC->getType());
if (Op1C->getType()->getPrimitiveSizeInBits() >
MulC->getType()->getPrimitiveSizeInBits())
MulC = ConstantExpr::getZExt(MulC, Op1C->getType());
// V == Base * (Mul0 * Op1), so return (Mul0 * Op1)
Multiple = ConstantExpr::getMul(MulC, Op1C);
return true;
}
if (ConstantInt *Mul0CI = dyn_cast<ConstantInt>(Mul0))
if (Mul0CI->getValue() == 1) {
// V == Base * Op1, so return Op1
Multiple = Op1;
return true;
}
}
Value *Mul1 = nullptr;
if (ComputeMultiple(Op1, Base, Mul1, LookThroughSExt, Depth+1)) {
if (Constant *Op0C = dyn_cast<Constant>(Op0))
if (Constant *MulC = dyn_cast<Constant>(Mul1)) {
if (Op0C->getType()->getPrimitiveSizeInBits() <
MulC->getType()->getPrimitiveSizeInBits())
Op0C = ConstantExpr::getZExt(Op0C, MulC->getType());
if (Op0C->getType()->getPrimitiveSizeInBits() >
MulC->getType()->getPrimitiveSizeInBits())
MulC = ConstantExpr::getZExt(MulC, Op0C->getType());
// V == Base * (Mul1 * Op0), so return (Mul1 * Op0)
Multiple = ConstantExpr::getMul(MulC, Op0C);
return true;
}
if (ConstantInt *Mul1CI = dyn_cast<ConstantInt>(Mul1))
if (Mul1CI->getValue() == 1) {
// V == Base * Op0, so return Op0
Multiple = Op0;
return true;
}
}
}
}
// We could not determine if V is a multiple of Base.
return false;
}
Intrinsic::ID llvm::getIntrinsicForCallSite(ImmutableCallSite ICS,
const TargetLibraryInfo *TLI) {
const Function *F = ICS.getCalledFunction();
if (!F)
return Intrinsic::not_intrinsic;
if (F->isIntrinsic())
return F->getIntrinsicID();
if (!TLI)
return Intrinsic::not_intrinsic;
LibFunc Func;
// We're going to make assumptions on the semantics of the functions, check
// that the target knows that it's available in this environment and it does
// not have local linkage.
if (!F || F->hasLocalLinkage() || !TLI->getLibFunc(*F, Func))
return Intrinsic::not_intrinsic;
if (!ICS.onlyReadsMemory())
return Intrinsic::not_intrinsic;
// Otherwise check if we have a call to a function that can be turned into a
// vector intrinsic.
switch (Func) {
default:
break;
case LibFunc_sin:
case LibFunc_sinf:
case LibFunc_sinl:
return Intrinsic::sin;
case LibFunc_cos:
case LibFunc_cosf:
case LibFunc_cosl:
return Intrinsic::cos;
case LibFunc_exp:
case LibFunc_expf:
case LibFunc_expl:
return Intrinsic::exp;
case LibFunc_exp2:
case LibFunc_exp2f:
case LibFunc_exp2l:
return Intrinsic::exp2;
case LibFunc_log:
case LibFunc_logf:
case LibFunc_logl:
return Intrinsic::log;
case LibFunc_log10:
case LibFunc_log10f:
case LibFunc_log10l:
return Intrinsic::log10;
case LibFunc_log2:
case LibFunc_log2f:
case LibFunc_log2l:
return Intrinsic::log2;
case LibFunc_fabs:
case LibFunc_fabsf:
case LibFunc_fabsl:
return Intrinsic::fabs;
case LibFunc_fmin:
case LibFunc_fminf:
case LibFunc_fminl:
return Intrinsic::minnum;
case LibFunc_fmax:
case LibFunc_fmaxf:
case LibFunc_fmaxl:
return Intrinsic::maxnum;
case LibFunc_copysign:
case LibFunc_copysignf:
case LibFunc_copysignl:
return Intrinsic::copysign;
case LibFunc_floor:
case LibFunc_floorf:
case LibFunc_floorl:
return Intrinsic::floor;
case LibFunc_ceil:
case LibFunc_ceilf:
case LibFunc_ceill:
return Intrinsic::ceil;
case LibFunc_trunc:
case LibFunc_truncf:
case LibFunc_truncl:
return Intrinsic::trunc;
case LibFunc_rint:
case LibFunc_rintf:
case LibFunc_rintl:
return Intrinsic::rint;
case LibFunc_nearbyint:
case LibFunc_nearbyintf:
case LibFunc_nearbyintl:
return Intrinsic::nearbyint;
case LibFunc_round:
case LibFunc_roundf:
case LibFunc_roundl:
return Intrinsic::round;
case LibFunc_pow:
case LibFunc_powf:
case LibFunc_powl:
return Intrinsic::pow;
case LibFunc_sqrt:
case LibFunc_sqrtf:
case LibFunc_sqrtl:
if (ICS->hasNoNaNs())
return Intrinsic::sqrt;
return Intrinsic::not_intrinsic;
}
return Intrinsic::not_intrinsic;
}
/// Return true if we can prove that the specified FP value is never equal to
/// -0.0.
///
/// NOTE: this function will need to be revisited when we support non-default
/// rounding modes!
///
bool llvm::CannotBeNegativeZero(const Value *V, const TargetLibraryInfo *TLI,
unsigned Depth) {
if (const ConstantFP *CFP = dyn_cast<ConstantFP>(V))
return !CFP->getValueAPF().isNegZero();
if (Depth == MaxDepth)
return false; // Limit search depth.
const Operator *I = dyn_cast<Operator>(V);
if (!I) return false;
// Check if the nsz fast-math flag is set
if (const FPMathOperator *FPO = dyn_cast<FPMathOperator>(I))
if (FPO->hasNoSignedZeros())
return true;
// (add x, 0.0) is guaranteed to return +0.0, not -0.0.
if (I->getOpcode() == Instruction::FAdd)
if (ConstantFP *CFP = dyn_cast<ConstantFP>(I->getOperand(1)))
if (CFP->isNullValue())
return true;
// sitofp and uitofp turn into +0.0 for zero.
if (isa<SIToFPInst>(I) || isa<UIToFPInst>(I))
return true;
if (const CallInst *CI = dyn_cast<CallInst>(I)) {
Intrinsic::ID IID = getIntrinsicForCallSite(CI, TLI);
switch (IID) {
default:
break;
// sqrt(-0.0) = -0.0, no other negative results are possible.
case Intrinsic::sqrt:
return CannotBeNegativeZero(CI->getArgOperand(0), TLI, Depth + 1);
// fabs(x) != -0.0
case Intrinsic::fabs:
return true;
}
}
return false;
}
/// If \p SignBitOnly is true, test for a known 0 sign bit rather than a
/// standard ordered compare. e.g. make -0.0 olt 0.0 be true because of the sign
/// bit despite comparing equal.
static bool cannotBeOrderedLessThanZeroImpl(const Value *V,
const TargetLibraryInfo *TLI,
bool SignBitOnly,
unsigned Depth) {
// TODO: This function does not do the right thing when SignBitOnly is true
// and we're lowering to a hypothetical IEEE 754-compliant-but-evil platform
// which flips the sign bits of NaNs. See
// https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=31702.
if (const ConstantFP *CFP = dyn_cast<ConstantFP>(V)) {
return !CFP->getValueAPF().isNegative() ||
(!SignBitOnly && CFP->getValueAPF().isZero());
}
if (Depth == MaxDepth)
return false; // Limit search depth.
const Operator *I = dyn_cast<Operator>(V);
if (!I)
return false;
switch (I->getOpcode()) {
default:
break;
// Unsigned integers are always nonnegative.
case Instruction::UIToFP:
return true;
case Instruction::FMul:
// x*x is always non-negative or a NaN.
if (I->getOperand(0) == I->getOperand(1) &&
(!SignBitOnly || cast<FPMathOperator>(I)->hasNoNaNs()))
return true;
LLVM_FALLTHROUGH;
case Instruction::FAdd:
case Instruction::FDiv:
case Instruction::FRem:
return cannotBeOrderedLessThanZeroImpl(I->getOperand(0), TLI, SignBitOnly,
Depth + 1) &&
cannotBeOrderedLessThanZeroImpl(I->getOperand(1), TLI, SignBitOnly,
Depth + 1);
case Instruction::Select:
return cannotBeOrderedLessThanZeroImpl(I->getOperand(1), TLI, SignBitOnly,
Depth + 1) &&
cannotBeOrderedLessThanZeroImpl(I->getOperand(2), TLI, SignBitOnly,
Depth + 1);
case Instruction::FPExt:
case Instruction::FPTrunc:
// Widening/narrowing never change sign.
return cannotBeOrderedLessThanZeroImpl(I->getOperand(0), TLI, SignBitOnly,
Depth + 1);
case Instruction::Call:
const auto *CI = cast<CallInst>(I);
Intrinsic::ID IID = getIntrinsicForCallSite(CI, TLI);
switch (IID) {
default:
break;
case Intrinsic::maxnum:
return cannotBeOrderedLessThanZeroImpl(I->getOperand(0), TLI, SignBitOnly,
Depth + 1) ||
cannotBeOrderedLessThanZeroImpl(I->getOperand(1), TLI, SignBitOnly,
Depth + 1);
case Intrinsic::minnum:
return cannotBeOrderedLessThanZeroImpl(I->getOperand(0), TLI, SignBitOnly,
Depth + 1) &&
cannotBeOrderedLessThanZeroImpl(I->getOperand(1), TLI, SignBitOnly,
Depth + 1);
case Intrinsic::exp:
case Intrinsic::exp2:
case Intrinsic::fabs:
return true;
case Intrinsic::sqrt:
// sqrt(x) is always >= -0 or NaN. Moreover, sqrt(x) == -0 iff x == -0.
if (!SignBitOnly)
return true;
return CI->hasNoNaNs() && (CI->hasNoSignedZeros() ||
CannotBeNegativeZero(CI->getOperand(0), TLI));
case Intrinsic::powi:
if (ConstantInt *Exponent = dyn_cast<ConstantInt>(I->getOperand(1))) {
// powi(x,n) is non-negative if n is even.
if (Exponent->getBitWidth() <= 64 && Exponent->getSExtValue() % 2u == 0)
return true;
}
// TODO: This is not correct. Given that exp is an integer, here are the
// ways that pow can return a negative value:
//
// pow(x, exp) --> negative if exp is odd and x is negative.
// pow(-0, exp) --> -inf if exp is negative odd.
// pow(-0, exp) --> -0 if exp is positive odd.
// pow(-inf, exp) --> -0 if exp is negative odd.
// pow(-inf, exp) --> -inf if exp is positive odd.
//
// Therefore, if !SignBitOnly, we can return true if x >= +0 or x is NaN,
// but we must return false if x == -0. Unfortunately we do not currently
// have a way of expressing this constraint. See details in
// https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=31702.
return cannotBeOrderedLessThanZeroImpl(I->getOperand(0), TLI, SignBitOnly,
Depth + 1);
case Intrinsic::fma:
case Intrinsic::fmuladd:
// x*x+y is non-negative if y is non-negative.
return I->getOperand(0) == I->getOperand(1) &&
(!SignBitOnly || cast<FPMathOperator>(I)->hasNoNaNs()) &&
cannotBeOrderedLessThanZeroImpl(I->getOperand(2), TLI, SignBitOnly,
Depth + 1);
}
break;
}
return false;
}
bool llvm::CannotBeOrderedLessThanZero(const Value *V,
const TargetLibraryInfo *TLI) {
return cannotBeOrderedLessThanZeroImpl(V, TLI, false, 0);
}
bool llvm::SignBitMustBeZero(const Value *V, const TargetLibraryInfo *TLI) {
return cannotBeOrderedLessThanZeroImpl(V, TLI, true, 0);
}
/// If the specified value can be set by repeating the same byte in memory,
/// return the i8 value that it is represented with. This is
/// true for all i8 values obviously, but is also true for i32 0, i32 -1,
/// i16 0xF0F0, double 0.0 etc. If the value can't be handled with a repeated
/// byte store (e.g. i16 0x1234), return null.
Value *llvm::isBytewiseValue(Value *V) {
// All byte-wide stores are splatable, even of arbitrary variables.
if (V->getType()->isIntegerTy(8)) return V;
// Handle 'null' ConstantArrayZero etc.
if (Constant *C = dyn_cast<Constant>(V))
if (C->isNullValue())
return Constant::getNullValue(Type::getInt8Ty(V->getContext()));
// Constant float and double values can be handled as integer values if the
// corresponding integer value is "byteable". An important case is 0.0.
if (ConstantFP *CFP = dyn_cast<ConstantFP>(V)) {
if (CFP->getType()->isFloatTy())
V = ConstantExpr::getBitCast(CFP, Type::getInt32Ty(V->getContext()));
if (CFP->getType()->isDoubleTy())
V = ConstantExpr::getBitCast(CFP, Type::getInt64Ty(V->getContext()));
// Don't handle long double formats, which have strange constraints.
}
// We can handle constant integers that are multiple of 8 bits.
if (ConstantInt *CI = dyn_cast<ConstantInt>(V)) {
if (CI->getBitWidth() % 8 == 0) {
assert(CI->getBitWidth() > 8 && "8 bits should be handled above!");
if (!CI->getValue().isSplat(8))
return nullptr;
return ConstantInt::get(V->getContext(), CI->getValue().trunc(8));
}
}
// A ConstantDataArray/Vector is splatable if all its members are equal and
// also splatable.
if (ConstantDataSequential *CA = dyn_cast<ConstantDataSequential>(V)) {
Value *Elt = CA->getElementAsConstant(0);
Value *Val = isBytewiseValue(Elt);
if (!Val)
return nullptr;
for (unsigned I = 1, E = CA->getNumElements(); I != E; ++I)
if (CA->getElementAsConstant(I) != Elt)
return nullptr;
return Val;
}
// Conceptually, we could handle things like:
// %a = zext i8 %X to i16
// %b = shl i16 %a, 8
// %c = or i16 %a, %b
// but until there is an example that actually needs this, it doesn't seem
// worth worrying about.
return nullptr;
}
// This is the recursive version of BuildSubAggregate. It takes a few different
// arguments. Idxs is the index within the nested struct From that we are
// looking at now (which is of type IndexedType). IdxSkip is the number of
// indices from Idxs that should be left out when inserting into the resulting
// struct. To is the result struct built so far, new insertvalue instructions
// build on that.
static Value *BuildSubAggregate(Value *From, Value* To, Type *IndexedType,
SmallVectorImpl<unsigned> &Idxs,
unsigned IdxSkip,
Instruction *InsertBefore) {
llvm::StructType *STy = dyn_cast<llvm::StructType>(IndexedType);
if (STy) {
// Save the original To argument so we can modify it
Value *OrigTo = To;
// General case, the type indexed by Idxs is a struct
for (unsigned i = 0, e = STy->getNumElements(); i != e; ++i) {
// Process each struct element recursively
Idxs.push_back(i);
Value *PrevTo = To;
2008-06-16 20:57:37 +08:00
To = BuildSubAggregate(From, To, STy->getElementType(i), Idxs, IdxSkip,
InsertBefore);
Idxs.pop_back();
if (!To) {
// Couldn't find any inserted value for this index? Cleanup
while (PrevTo != OrigTo) {
InsertValueInst* Del = cast<InsertValueInst>(PrevTo);
PrevTo = Del->getAggregateOperand();
Del->eraseFromParent();
}
// Stop processing elements
break;
}
}
// If we successfully found a value for each of our subaggregates
if (To)
return To;
}
// Base case, the type indexed by SourceIdxs is not a struct, or not all of
// the struct's elements had a value that was inserted directly. In the latter
// case, perhaps we can't determine each of the subelements individually, but
// we might be able to find the complete struct somewhere.
// Find the value that is at that particular spot
Value *V = FindInsertedValue(From, Idxs);
if (!V)
return nullptr;
// Insert the value in the new (sub) aggregrate
return llvm::InsertValueInst::Create(To, V, makeArrayRef(Idxs).slice(IdxSkip),
"tmp", InsertBefore);
}
// This helper takes a nested struct and extracts a part of it (which is again a
// struct) into a new value. For example, given the struct:
// { a, { b, { c, d }, e } }
// and the indices "1, 1" this returns
// { c, d }.
//
// It does this by inserting an insertvalue for each element in the resulting
// struct, as opposed to just inserting a single struct. This will only work if
// each of the elements of the substruct are known (ie, inserted into From by an
// insertvalue instruction somewhere).
//
// All inserted insertvalue instructions are inserted before InsertBefore
static Value *BuildSubAggregate(Value *From, ArrayRef<unsigned> idx_range,
Instruction *InsertBefore) {
assert(InsertBefore && "Must have someplace to insert!");
Type *IndexedType = ExtractValueInst::getIndexedType(From->getType(),
idx_range);
Value *To = UndefValue::get(IndexedType);
SmallVector<unsigned, 10> Idxs(idx_range.begin(), idx_range.end());
unsigned IdxSkip = Idxs.size();
return BuildSubAggregate(From, To, IndexedType, Idxs, IdxSkip, InsertBefore);
}
/// Given an aggregrate and an sequence of indices, see if
2008-06-16 20:57:37 +08:00
/// the scalar value indexed is already around as a register, for example if it
/// were inserted directly into the aggregrate.
///
/// If InsertBefore is not null, this function will duplicate (modified)
/// insertvalues when a part of a nested struct is extracted.
Value *llvm::FindInsertedValue(Value *V, ArrayRef<unsigned> idx_range,
Instruction *InsertBefore) {
// Nothing to index? Just return V then (this is useful at the end of our
// recursion).
if (idx_range.empty())
return V;
// We have indices, so V should have an indexable type.
assert((V->getType()->isStructTy() || V->getType()->isArrayTy()) &&
"Not looking at a struct or array?");
assert(ExtractValueInst::getIndexedType(V->getType(), idx_range) &&
"Invalid indices for type?");
if (Constant *C = dyn_cast<Constant>(V)) {
C = C->getAggregateElement(idx_range[0]);
if (!C) return nullptr;
return FindInsertedValue(C, idx_range.slice(1), InsertBefore);
}
if (InsertValueInst *I = dyn_cast<InsertValueInst>(V)) {
// Loop the indices for the insertvalue instruction in parallel with the
// requested indices
const unsigned *req_idx = idx_range.begin();
2008-06-16 20:57:37 +08:00
for (const unsigned *i = I->idx_begin(), *e = I->idx_end();
i != e; ++i, ++req_idx) {
if (req_idx == idx_range.end()) {
// We can't handle this without inserting insertvalues
if (!InsertBefore)
return nullptr;
// The requested index identifies a part of a nested aggregate. Handle
// this specially. For example,
// %A = insertvalue { i32, {i32, i32 } } undef, i32 10, 1, 0
// %B = insertvalue { i32, {i32, i32 } } %A, i32 11, 1, 1
// %C = extractvalue {i32, { i32, i32 } } %B, 1
// This can be changed into
// %A = insertvalue {i32, i32 } undef, i32 10, 0
// %C = insertvalue {i32, i32 } %A, i32 11, 1
// which allows the unused 0,0 element from the nested struct to be
// removed.
return BuildSubAggregate(V, makeArrayRef(idx_range.begin(), req_idx),
InsertBefore);
}
// This insert value inserts something else than what we are looking for.
// See if the (aggregate) value inserted into has the value we are
// looking for, then.
if (*req_idx != *i)
return FindInsertedValue(I->getAggregateOperand(), idx_range,
InsertBefore);
}
// If we end up here, the indices of the insertvalue match with those
// requested (though possibly only partially). Now we recursively look at
// the inserted value, passing any remaining indices.
return FindInsertedValue(I->getInsertedValueOperand(),
makeArrayRef(req_idx, idx_range.end()),
InsertBefore);
}
if (ExtractValueInst *I = dyn_cast<ExtractValueInst>(V)) {
// If we're extracting a value from an aggregate that was extracted from
// something else, we can extract from that something else directly instead.
// However, we will need to chain I's indices with the requested indices.
// Calculate the number of indices required
unsigned size = I->getNumIndices() + idx_range.size();
// Allocate some space to put the new indices in
SmallVector<unsigned, 5> Idxs;
Idxs.reserve(size);
// Add indices from the extract value instruction
Idxs.append(I->idx_begin(), I->idx_end());
// Add requested indices
Idxs.append(idx_range.begin(), idx_range.end());
assert(Idxs.size() == size
2008-06-16 20:57:37 +08:00
&& "Number of indices added not correct?");
return FindInsertedValue(I->getAggregateOperand(), Idxs, InsertBefore);
}
// Otherwise, we don't know (such as, extracting from a function return value
// or load instruction)
return nullptr;
}
/// Analyze the specified pointer to see if it can be expressed as a base
/// pointer plus a constant offset. Return the base and offset to the caller.
Value *llvm::GetPointerBaseWithConstantOffset(Value *Ptr, int64_t &Offset,
const DataLayout &DL) {
unsigned BitWidth = DL.getPointerTypeSizeInBits(Ptr->getType());
APInt ByteOffset(BitWidth, 0);
// We walk up the defs but use a visited set to handle unreachable code. In
// that case, we stop after accumulating the cycle once (not that it
// matters).
SmallPtrSet<Value *, 16> Visited;
while (Visited.insert(Ptr).second) {
if (Ptr->getType()->isVectorTy())
break;
if (GEPOperator *GEP = dyn_cast<GEPOperator>(Ptr)) {
// If one of the values we have visited is an addrspacecast, then
// the pointer type of this GEP may be different from the type
// of the Ptr parameter which was passed to this function. This
// means when we construct GEPOffset, we need to use the size
// of GEP's pointer type rather than the size of the original
// pointer type.
APInt GEPOffset(DL.getPointerTypeSizeInBits(Ptr->getType()), 0);
if (!GEP->accumulateConstantOffset(DL, GEPOffset))
break;
ByteOffset += GEPOffset.getSExtValue();
Ptr = GEP->getPointerOperand();
} else if (Operator::getOpcode(Ptr) == Instruction::BitCast ||
Operator::getOpcode(Ptr) == Instruction::AddrSpaceCast) {
Ptr = cast<Operator>(Ptr)->getOperand(0);
} else if (GlobalAlias *GA = dyn_cast<GlobalAlias>(Ptr)) {
Don't IPO over functions that can be de-refined Summary: Fixes PR26774. If you're aware of the issue, feel free to skip the "Motivation" section and jump directly to "This patch". Motivation: I define "refinement" as discarding behaviors from a program that the optimizer has license to discard. So transforming: ``` void f(unsigned x) { unsigned t = 5 / x; (void)t; } ``` to ``` void f(unsigned x) { } ``` is refinement, since the behavior went from "if x == 0 then undefined else nothing" to "nothing" (the optimizer has license to discard undefined behavior). Refinement is a fundamental aspect of many mid-level optimizations done by LLVM. For instance, transforming `x == (x + 1)` to `false` also involves refinement since the expression's value went from "if x is `undef` then { `true` or `false` } else { `false` }" to "`false`" (by definition, the optimizer has license to fold `undef` to any non-`undef` value). Unfortunately, refinement implies that the optimizer cannot assume that the implementation of a function it can see has all of the behavior an unoptimized or a differently optimized version of the same function can have. This is a problem for functions with comdat linkage, where a function can be replaced by an unoptimized or a differently optimized version of the same source level function. For instance, FunctionAttrs cannot assume a comdat function is actually `readnone` even if it does not have any loads or stores in it; since there may have been loads and stores in the "original function" that were refined out in the currently visible variant, and at the link step the linker may in fact choose an implementation with a load or a store. As an example, consider a function that does two atomic loads from the same memory location, and writes to memory only if the two values are not equal. The optimizer is allowed to refine this function by first CSE'ing the two loads, and the folding the comparision to always report that the two values are equal. Such a refined variant will look like it is `readonly`. However, the unoptimized version of the function can still write to memory (since the two loads //can// result in different values), and selecting the unoptimized version at link time will retroactively invalidate transforms we may have done under the assumption that the function does not write to memory. Note: this is not just a problem with atomics or with linking differently optimized object files. See PR26774 for more realistic examples that involved neither. This patch: This change introduces a new set of linkage types, predicated as `GlobalValue::mayBeDerefined` that returns true if the linkage type allows a function to be replaced by a differently optimized variant at link time. It then changes a set of IPO passes to bail out if they see such a function. Reviewers: chandlerc, hfinkel, dexonsmith, joker.eph, rnk Subscribers: mcrosier, llvm-commits Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D18634 llvm-svn: 265762
2016-04-08 08:48:30 +08:00
if (GA->isInterposable())
break;
Ptr = GA->getAliasee();
} else {
break;
}
}
Offset = ByteOffset.getSExtValue();
return Ptr;
}
bool llvm::isGEPBasedOnPointerToString(const GEPOperator *GEP) {
// Make sure the GEP has exactly three arguments.
if (GEP->getNumOperands() != 3)
return false;
// Make sure the index-ee is a pointer to array of i8.
ArrayType *AT = dyn_cast<ArrayType>(GEP->getSourceElementType());
if (!AT || !AT->getElementType()->isIntegerTy(8))
return false;
// Check to make sure that the first operand of the GEP is an integer and
// has value 0 so that we are sure we're indexing into the initializer.
const ConstantInt *FirstIdx = dyn_cast<ConstantInt>(GEP->getOperand(1));
if (!FirstIdx || !FirstIdx->isZero())
return false;
return true;
}
/// This function computes the length of a null-terminated C string pointed to
/// by V. If successful, it returns true and returns the string in Str.
/// If unsuccessful, it returns false.
bool llvm::getConstantStringInfo(const Value *V, StringRef &Str,
uint64_t Offset, bool TrimAtNul) {
assert(V);
// Look through bitcast instructions and geps.
V = V->stripPointerCasts();
// If the value is a GEP instruction or constant expression, treat it as an
// offset.
if (const GEPOperator *GEP = dyn_cast<GEPOperator>(V)) {
// The GEP operator should be based on a pointer to string constant, and is
// indexing into the string constant.
if (!isGEPBasedOnPointerToString(GEP))
return false;
// If the second index isn't a ConstantInt, then this is a variable index
// into the array. If this occurs, we can't say anything meaningful about
// the string.
uint64_t StartIdx = 0;
if (const ConstantInt *CI = dyn_cast<ConstantInt>(GEP->getOperand(2)))
StartIdx = CI->getZExtValue();
else
return false;
return getConstantStringInfo(GEP->getOperand(0), Str, StartIdx + Offset,
TrimAtNul);
}
// The GEP instruction, constant or instruction, must reference a global
// variable that is a constant and is initialized. The referenced constant
// initializer is the array that we'll use for optimization.
const GlobalVariable *GV = dyn_cast<GlobalVariable>(V);
if (!GV || !GV->isConstant() || !GV->hasDefinitiveInitializer())
return false;
// Handle the all-zeros case.
if (GV->getInitializer()->isNullValue()) {
// This is a degenerate case. The initializer is constant zero so the
// length of the string must be zero.
Str = "";
return true;
}
// This must be a ConstantDataArray.
const auto *Array = dyn_cast<ConstantDataArray>(GV->getInitializer());
if (!Array || !Array->isString())
return false;
// Get the number of elements in the array.
uint64_t NumElts = Array->getType()->getArrayNumElements();
// Start out with the entire array in the StringRef.
Str = Array->getAsString();
if (Offset > NumElts)
return false;
// Skip over 'offset' bytes.
Str = Str.substr(Offset);
if (TrimAtNul) {
// Trim off the \0 and anything after it. If the array is not nul
// terminated, we just return the whole end of string. The client may know
// some other way that the string is length-bound.
Str = Str.substr(0, Str.find('\0'));
}
return true;
}
// These next two are very similar to the above, but also look through PHI
// nodes.
// TODO: See if we can integrate these two together.
/// If we can compute the length of the string pointed to by
/// the specified pointer, return 'len+1'. If we can't, return 0.
static uint64_t GetStringLengthH(const Value *V,
SmallPtrSetImpl<const PHINode*> &PHIs) {
// Look through noop bitcast instructions.
V = V->stripPointerCasts();
// If this is a PHI node, there are two cases: either we have already seen it
// or we haven't.
if (const PHINode *PN = dyn_cast<PHINode>(V)) {
if (!PHIs.insert(PN).second)
return ~0ULL; // already in the set.
// If it was new, see if all the input strings are the same length.
uint64_t LenSoFar = ~0ULL;
for (Value *IncValue : PN->incoming_values()) {
uint64_t Len = GetStringLengthH(IncValue, PHIs);
if (Len == 0) return 0; // Unknown length -> unknown.
if (Len == ~0ULL) continue;
if (Len != LenSoFar && LenSoFar != ~0ULL)
return 0; // Disagree -> unknown.
LenSoFar = Len;
}
// Success, all agree.
return LenSoFar;
}
// strlen(select(c,x,y)) -> strlen(x) ^ strlen(y)
if (const SelectInst *SI = dyn_cast<SelectInst>(V)) {
uint64_t Len1 = GetStringLengthH(SI->getTrueValue(), PHIs);
if (Len1 == 0) return 0;
uint64_t Len2 = GetStringLengthH(SI->getFalseValue(), PHIs);
if (Len2 == 0) return 0;
if (Len1 == ~0ULL) return Len2;
if (Len2 == ~0ULL) return Len1;
if (Len1 != Len2) return 0;
return Len1;
}
// Otherwise, see if we can read the string.
StringRef StrData;
if (!getConstantStringInfo(V, StrData))
return 0;
return StrData.size()+1;
}
/// If we can compute the length of the string pointed to by
/// the specified pointer, return 'len+1'. If we can't, return 0.
uint64_t llvm::GetStringLength(const Value *V) {
if (!V->getType()->isPointerTy()) return 0;
SmallPtrSet<const PHINode*, 32> PHIs;
uint64_t Len = GetStringLengthH(V, PHIs);
// If Len is ~0ULL, we had an infinite phi cycle: this is dead code, so return
// an empty string as a length.
return Len == ~0ULL ? 1 : Len;
}
/// \brief \p PN defines a loop-variant pointer to an object. Check if the
/// previous iteration of the loop was referring to the same object as \p PN.
static bool isSameUnderlyingObjectInLoop(const PHINode *PN,
const LoopInfo *LI) {
// Find the loop-defined value.
Loop *L = LI->getLoopFor(PN->getParent());
if (PN->getNumIncomingValues() != 2)
return true;
// Find the value from previous iteration.
auto *PrevValue = dyn_cast<Instruction>(PN->getIncomingValue(0));
if (!PrevValue || LI->getLoopFor(PrevValue->getParent()) != L)
PrevValue = dyn_cast<Instruction>(PN->getIncomingValue(1));
if (!PrevValue || LI->getLoopFor(PrevValue->getParent()) != L)
return true;
// If a new pointer is loaded in the loop, the pointer references a different
// object in every iteration. E.g.:
// for (i)
// int *p = a[i];
// ...
if (auto *Load = dyn_cast<LoadInst>(PrevValue))
if (!L->isLoopInvariant(Load->getPointerOperand()))
return false;
return true;
}
Value *llvm::GetUnderlyingObject(Value *V, const DataLayout &DL,
unsigned MaxLookup) {
if (!V->getType()->isPointerTy())
return V;
for (unsigned Count = 0; MaxLookup == 0 || Count < MaxLookup; ++Count) {
if (GEPOperator *GEP = dyn_cast<GEPOperator>(V)) {
V = GEP->getPointerOperand();
} else if (Operator::getOpcode(V) == Instruction::BitCast ||
Operator::getOpcode(V) == Instruction::AddrSpaceCast) {
V = cast<Operator>(V)->getOperand(0);
} else if (GlobalAlias *GA = dyn_cast<GlobalAlias>(V)) {
Don't IPO over functions that can be de-refined Summary: Fixes PR26774. If you're aware of the issue, feel free to skip the "Motivation" section and jump directly to "This patch". Motivation: I define "refinement" as discarding behaviors from a program that the optimizer has license to discard. So transforming: ``` void f(unsigned x) { unsigned t = 5 / x; (void)t; } ``` to ``` void f(unsigned x) { } ``` is refinement, since the behavior went from "if x == 0 then undefined else nothing" to "nothing" (the optimizer has license to discard undefined behavior). Refinement is a fundamental aspect of many mid-level optimizations done by LLVM. For instance, transforming `x == (x + 1)` to `false` also involves refinement since the expression's value went from "if x is `undef` then { `true` or `false` } else { `false` }" to "`false`" (by definition, the optimizer has license to fold `undef` to any non-`undef` value). Unfortunately, refinement implies that the optimizer cannot assume that the implementation of a function it can see has all of the behavior an unoptimized or a differently optimized version of the same function can have. This is a problem for functions with comdat linkage, where a function can be replaced by an unoptimized or a differently optimized version of the same source level function. For instance, FunctionAttrs cannot assume a comdat function is actually `readnone` even if it does not have any loads or stores in it; since there may have been loads and stores in the "original function" that were refined out in the currently visible variant, and at the link step the linker may in fact choose an implementation with a load or a store. As an example, consider a function that does two atomic loads from the same memory location, and writes to memory only if the two values are not equal. The optimizer is allowed to refine this function by first CSE'ing the two loads, and the folding the comparision to always report that the two values are equal. Such a refined variant will look like it is `readonly`. However, the unoptimized version of the function can still write to memory (since the two loads //can// result in different values), and selecting the unoptimized version at link time will retroactively invalidate transforms we may have done under the assumption that the function does not write to memory. Note: this is not just a problem with atomics or with linking differently optimized object files. See PR26774 for more realistic examples that involved neither. This patch: This change introduces a new set of linkage types, predicated as `GlobalValue::mayBeDerefined` that returns true if the linkage type allows a function to be replaced by a differently optimized variant at link time. It then changes a set of IPO passes to bail out if they see such a function. Reviewers: chandlerc, hfinkel, dexonsmith, joker.eph, rnk Subscribers: mcrosier, llvm-commits Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D18634 llvm-svn: 265762
2016-04-08 08:48:30 +08:00
if (GA->isInterposable())
return V;
V = GA->getAliasee();
} else {
if (auto CS = CallSite(V))
if (Value *RV = CS.getReturnedArgOperand()) {
V = RV;
continue;
}
// See if InstructionSimplify knows any relevant tricks.
if (Instruction *I = dyn_cast<Instruction>(V))
// TODO: Acquire a DominatorTree and AssumptionCache and use them.
if (Value *Simplified = SimplifyInstruction(I, DL, nullptr)) {
V = Simplified;
continue;
}
return V;
}
assert(V->getType()->isPointerTy() && "Unexpected operand type!");
}
return V;
}
void llvm::GetUnderlyingObjects(Value *V, SmallVectorImpl<Value *> &Objects,
const DataLayout &DL, LoopInfo *LI,
unsigned MaxLookup) {
SmallPtrSet<Value *, 4> Visited;
SmallVector<Value *, 4> Worklist;
Worklist.push_back(V);
do {
Value *P = Worklist.pop_back_val();
P = GetUnderlyingObject(P, DL, MaxLookup);
if (!Visited.insert(P).second)
continue;
if (SelectInst *SI = dyn_cast<SelectInst>(P)) {
Worklist.push_back(SI->getTrueValue());
Worklist.push_back(SI->getFalseValue());
continue;
}
if (PHINode *PN = dyn_cast<PHINode>(P)) {
// If this PHI changes the underlying object in every iteration of the
// loop, don't look through it. Consider:
// int **A;
// for (i) {
// Prev = Curr; // Prev = PHI (Prev_0, Curr)
// Curr = A[i];
// *Prev, *Curr;
//
// Prev is tracking Curr one iteration behind so they refer to different
// underlying objects.
if (!LI || !LI->isLoopHeader(PN->getParent()) ||
isSameUnderlyingObjectInLoop(PN, LI))
for (Value *IncValue : PN->incoming_values())
Worklist.push_back(IncValue);
continue;
}
Objects.push_back(P);
} while (!Worklist.empty());
}
/// Return true if the only users of this pointer are lifetime markers.
bool llvm::onlyUsedByLifetimeMarkers(const Value *V) {
[C++11] Add range based accessors for the Use-Def chain of a Value. This requires a number of steps. 1) Move value_use_iterator into the Value class as an implementation detail 2) Change it to actually be a *Use* iterator rather than a *User* iterator. 3) Add an adaptor which is a User iterator that always looks through the Use to the User. 4) Wrap these in Value::use_iterator and Value::user_iterator typedefs. 5) Add the range adaptors as Value::uses() and Value::users(). 6) Update *all* of the callers to correctly distinguish between whether they wanted a use_iterator (and to explicitly dig out the User when needed), or a user_iterator which makes the Use itself totally opaque. Because #6 requires churning essentially everything that walked the Use-Def chains, I went ahead and added all of the range adaptors and switched them to range-based loops where appropriate. Also because the renaming requires at least churning every line of code, it didn't make any sense to split these up into multiple commits -- all of which would touch all of the same lies of code. The result is still not quite optimal. The Value::use_iterator is a nice regular iterator, but Value::user_iterator is an iterator over User*s rather than over the User objects themselves. As a consequence, it fits a bit awkwardly into the range-based world and it has the weird extra-dereferencing 'operator->' that so many of our iterators have. I think this could be fixed by providing something which transforms a range of T&s into a range of T*s, but that *can* be separated into another patch, and it isn't yet 100% clear whether this is the right move. However, this change gets us most of the benefit and cleans up a substantial amount of code around Use and User. =] llvm-svn: 203364
2014-03-09 11:16:01 +08:00
for (const User *U : V->users()) {
const IntrinsicInst *II = dyn_cast<IntrinsicInst>(U);
if (!II) return false;
if (II->getIntrinsicID() != Intrinsic::lifetime_start &&
II->getIntrinsicID() != Intrinsic::lifetime_end)
return false;
}
return true;
}
bool llvm::isSafeToSpeculativelyExecute(const Value *V,
const Instruction *CtxI,
const DominatorTree *DT) {
const Operator *Inst = dyn_cast<Operator>(V);
if (!Inst)
return false;
for (unsigned i = 0, e = Inst->getNumOperands(); i != e; ++i)
if (Constant *C = dyn_cast<Constant>(Inst->getOperand(i)))
if (C->canTrap())
return false;
switch (Inst->getOpcode()) {
default:
return true;
case Instruction::UDiv:
case Instruction::URem: {
// x / y is undefined if y == 0.
const APInt *V;
if (match(Inst->getOperand(1), m_APInt(V)))
return *V != 0;
return false;
}
case Instruction::SDiv:
case Instruction::SRem: {
// x / y is undefined if y == 0 or x == INT_MIN and y == -1
const APInt *Numerator, *Denominator;
if (!match(Inst->getOperand(1), m_APInt(Denominator)))
return false;
// We cannot hoist this division if the denominator is 0.
if (*Denominator == 0)
return false;
// It's safe to hoist if the denominator is not 0 or -1.
if (*Denominator != -1)
return true;
// At this point we know that the denominator is -1. It is safe to hoist as
// long we know that the numerator is not INT_MIN.
if (match(Inst->getOperand(0), m_APInt(Numerator)))
return !Numerator->isMinSignedValue();
// The numerator *might* be MinSignedValue.
return false;
}
case Instruction::Load: {
const LoadInst *LI = cast<LoadInst>(Inst);
if (!LI->isUnordered() ||
// Speculative load may create a race that did not exist in the source.
LI->getFunction()->hasFnAttribute(Attribute::SanitizeThread) ||
// Speculative load may load data from dirty regions.
LI->getFunction()->hasFnAttribute(Attribute::SanitizeAddress))
return false;
const DataLayout &DL = LI->getModule()->getDataLayout();
return isDereferenceableAndAlignedPointer(LI->getPointerOperand(),
LI->getAlignment(), DL, CtxI, DT);
}
case Instruction::Call: {
if (const IntrinsicInst *II = dyn_cast<IntrinsicInst>(Inst)) {
switch (II->getIntrinsicID()) {
// These synthetic intrinsics have no side-effects and just mark
// information about their operands.
// FIXME: There are other no-op synthetic instructions that potentially
// should be considered at least *safe* to speculate...
case Intrinsic::dbg_declare:
case Intrinsic::dbg_value:
return true;
case Intrinsic::bitreverse:
case Intrinsic::bswap:
case Intrinsic::ctlz:
case Intrinsic::ctpop:
case Intrinsic::cttz:
case Intrinsic::objectsize:
case Intrinsic::sadd_with_overflow:
case Intrinsic::smul_with_overflow:
case Intrinsic::ssub_with_overflow:
case Intrinsic::uadd_with_overflow:
case Intrinsic::umul_with_overflow:
case Intrinsic::usub_with_overflow:
return true;
// These intrinsics are defined to have the same behavior as libm
// functions except for setting errno.
case Intrinsic::sqrt:
case Intrinsic::fma:
case Intrinsic::fmuladd:
return true;
// These intrinsics are defined to have the same behavior as libm
// functions, and the corresponding libm functions never set errno.
case Intrinsic::trunc:
case Intrinsic::copysign:
case Intrinsic::fabs:
case Intrinsic::minnum:
case Intrinsic::maxnum:
return true;
// These intrinsics are defined to have the same behavior as libm
// functions, which never overflow when operating on the IEEE754 types
// that we support, and never set errno otherwise.
case Intrinsic::ceil:
case Intrinsic::floor:
case Intrinsic::nearbyint:
case Intrinsic::rint:
case Intrinsic::round:
return true;
// These intrinsics do not correspond to any libm function, and
// do not set errno.
case Intrinsic::powi:
return true;
// TODO: are convert_{from,to}_fp16 safe?
// TODO: can we list target-specific intrinsics here?
default: break;
}
}
return false; // The called function could have undefined behavior or
// side-effects, even if marked readnone nounwind.
}
case Instruction::VAArg:
case Instruction::Alloca:
case Instruction::Invoke:
case Instruction::PHI:
case Instruction::Store:
case Instruction::Ret:
case Instruction::Br:
case Instruction::IndirectBr:
case Instruction::Switch:
case Instruction::Unreachable:
case Instruction::Fence:
case Instruction::AtomicRMW:
case Instruction::AtomicCmpXchg:
case Instruction::LandingPad:
case Instruction::Resume:
[IR] Reformulate LLVM's EH funclet IR While we have successfully implemented a funclet-oriented EH scheme on top of LLVM IR, our scheme has some notable deficiencies: - catchendpad and cleanupendpad are necessary in the current design but they are difficult to explain to others, even to seasoned LLVM experts. - catchendpad and cleanupendpad are optimization barriers. They cannot be split and force all potentially throwing call-sites to be invokes. This has a noticable effect on the quality of our code generation. - catchpad, while similar in some aspects to invoke, is fairly awkward. It is unsplittable, starts a funclet, and has control flow to other funclets. - The nesting relationship between funclets is currently a property of control flow edges. Because of this, we are forced to carefully analyze the flow graph to see if there might potentially exist illegal nesting among funclets. While we have logic to clone funclets when they are illegally nested, it would be nicer if we had a representation which forbade them upfront. Let's clean this up a bit by doing the following: - Instead, make catchpad more like cleanuppad and landingpad: no control flow, just a bunch of simple operands; catchpad would be splittable. - Introduce catchswitch, a control flow instruction designed to model the constraints of funclet oriented EH. - Make funclet scoping explicit by having funclet instructions consume the token produced by the funclet which contains them. - Remove catchendpad and cleanupendpad. Their presence can be inferred implicitly using coloring information. N.B. The state numbering code for the CLR has been updated but the veracity of it's output cannot be spoken for. An expert should take a look to make sure the results are reasonable. Reviewers: rnk, JosephTremoulet, andrew.w.kaylor Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D15139 llvm-svn: 255422
2015-12-12 13:38:55 +08:00
case Instruction::CatchSwitch:
case Instruction::CatchPad:
case Instruction::CatchRet:
case Instruction::CleanupPad:
case Instruction::CleanupRet:
return false; // Misc instructions which have effects
}
}
bool llvm::mayBeMemoryDependent(const Instruction &I) {
return I.mayReadOrWriteMemory() || !isSafeToSpeculativelyExecute(&I);
}
/// Return true if we know that the specified value is never null.
bool llvm::isKnownNonNull(const Value *V) {
assert(V->getType()->isPointerTy() && "V must be pointer type");
// Alloca never returns null, malloc might.
if (isa<AllocaInst>(V)) return true;
// A byval, inalloca, or nonnull argument is never null.
if (const Argument *A = dyn_cast<Argument>(V))
return A->hasByValOrInAllocaAttr() || A->hasNonNullAttr();
// A global variable in address space 0 is non null unless extern weak
// or an absolute symbol reference. Other address spaces may have null as a
// valid address for a global, so we can't assume anything.
if (const GlobalValue *GV = dyn_cast<GlobalValue>(V))
return !GV->isAbsoluteSymbolRef() && !GV->hasExternalWeakLinkage() &&
GV->getType()->getAddressSpace() == 0;
2016-05-07 10:08:22 +08:00
// A Load tagged with nonnull metadata is never null.
if (const LoadInst *LI = dyn_cast<LoadInst>(V))
return LI->getMetadata(LLVMContext::MD_nonnull);
if (auto CS = ImmutableCallSite(V))
if (CS.isReturnNonNull())
return true;
return false;
}
static bool isKnownNonNullFromDominatingCondition(const Value *V,
const Instruction *CtxI,
const DominatorTree *DT) {
assert(V->getType()->isPointerTy() && "V must be pointer type");
assert(!isa<ConstantData>(V) && "Did not expect ConstantPointerNull");
assert(CtxI && "Context instruction required for analysis");
assert(DT && "Dominator tree required for analysis");
unsigned NumUsesExplored = 0;
for (auto *U : V->users()) {
// Avoid massive lists
if (NumUsesExplored >= DomConditionsMaxUses)
break;
NumUsesExplored++;
// If the value is used as an argument to a call or invoke, then argument
// attributes may provide an answer about null-ness.
if (auto CS = ImmutableCallSite(U))
if (auto *CalledFunc = CS.getCalledFunction())
for (const Argument &Arg : CalledFunc->args())
if (CS.getArgOperand(Arg.getArgNo()) == V &&
Arg.hasNonNullAttr() && DT->dominates(CS.getInstruction(), CtxI))
return true;
// Consider only compare instructions uniquely controlling a branch
CmpInst::Predicate Pred;
if (!match(const_cast<User *>(U),
m_c_ICmp(Pred, m_Specific(V), m_Zero())) ||
(Pred != ICmpInst::ICMP_EQ && Pred != ICmpInst::ICMP_NE))
continue;
for (auto *CmpU : U->users()) {
if (const BranchInst *BI = dyn_cast<BranchInst>(CmpU)) {
assert(BI->isConditional() && "uses a comparison!");
BasicBlock *NonNullSuccessor =
BI->getSuccessor(Pred == ICmpInst::ICMP_EQ ? 1 : 0);
BasicBlockEdge Edge(BI->getParent(), NonNullSuccessor);
if (Edge.isSingleEdge() && DT->dominates(Edge, CtxI->getParent()))
return true;
} else if (Pred == ICmpInst::ICMP_NE &&
match(CmpU, m_Intrinsic<Intrinsic::experimental_guard>()) &&
DT->dominates(cast<Instruction>(CmpU), CtxI)) {
return true;
}
}
}
return false;
}
bool llvm::isKnownNonNullAt(const Value *V, const Instruction *CtxI,
const DominatorTree *DT) {
if (isa<ConstantPointerNull>(V) || isa<UndefValue>(V))
return false;
if (isKnownNonNull(V))
return true;
if (!CtxI || !DT)
return false;
return ::isKnownNonNullFromDominatingCondition(V, CtxI, DT);
}
OverflowResult llvm::computeOverflowForUnsignedMul(const Value *LHS,
const Value *RHS,
const DataLayout &DL,
AssumptionCache *AC,
const Instruction *CxtI,
const DominatorTree *DT) {
// Multiplying n * m significant bits yields a result of n + m significant
// bits. If the total number of significant bits does not exceed the
// result bit width (minus 1), there is no overflow.
// This means if we have enough leading zero bits in the operands
// we can guarantee that the result does not overflow.
// Ref: "Hacker's Delight" by Henry Warren
unsigned BitWidth = LHS->getType()->getScalarSizeInBits();
APInt LHSKnownZero(BitWidth, 0);
APInt LHSKnownOne(BitWidth, 0);
APInt RHSKnownZero(BitWidth, 0);
APInt RHSKnownOne(BitWidth, 0);
computeKnownBits(LHS, LHSKnownZero, LHSKnownOne, DL, /*Depth=*/0, AC, CxtI,
DT);
computeKnownBits(RHS, RHSKnownZero, RHSKnownOne, DL, /*Depth=*/0, AC, CxtI,
DT);
// Note that underestimating the number of zero bits gives a more
// conservative answer.
unsigned ZeroBits = LHSKnownZero.countLeadingOnes() +
RHSKnownZero.countLeadingOnes();
// First handle the easy case: if we have enough zero bits there's
// definitely no overflow.
if (ZeroBits >= BitWidth)
return OverflowResult::NeverOverflows;
// Get the largest possible values for each operand.
APInt LHSMax = ~LHSKnownZero;
APInt RHSMax = ~RHSKnownZero;
// We know the multiply operation doesn't overflow if the maximum values for
// each operand will not overflow after we multiply them together.
bool MaxOverflow;
LHSMax.umul_ov(RHSMax, MaxOverflow);
if (!MaxOverflow)
return OverflowResult::NeverOverflows;
// We know it always overflows if multiplying the smallest possible values for
// the operands also results in overflow.
bool MinOverflow;
LHSKnownOne.umul_ov(RHSKnownOne, MinOverflow);
if (MinOverflow)
return OverflowResult::AlwaysOverflows;
return OverflowResult::MayOverflow;
}
OverflowResult llvm::computeOverflowForUnsignedAdd(const Value *LHS,
const Value *RHS,
const DataLayout &DL,
AssumptionCache *AC,
const Instruction *CxtI,
const DominatorTree *DT) {
bool LHSKnownNonNegative, LHSKnownNegative;
ComputeSignBit(LHS, LHSKnownNonNegative, LHSKnownNegative, DL, /*Depth=*/0,
AC, CxtI, DT);
if (LHSKnownNonNegative || LHSKnownNegative) {
bool RHSKnownNonNegative, RHSKnownNegative;
ComputeSignBit(RHS, RHSKnownNonNegative, RHSKnownNegative, DL, /*Depth=*/0,
AC, CxtI, DT);
if (LHSKnownNegative && RHSKnownNegative) {
// The sign bit is set in both cases: this MUST overflow.
// Create a simple add instruction, and insert it into the struct.
return OverflowResult::AlwaysOverflows;
}
if (LHSKnownNonNegative && RHSKnownNonNegative) {
// The sign bit is clear in both cases: this CANNOT overflow.
// Create a simple add instruction, and insert it into the struct.
return OverflowResult::NeverOverflows;
}
}
return OverflowResult::MayOverflow;
}
static OverflowResult computeOverflowForSignedAdd(const Value *LHS,
const Value *RHS,
const AddOperator *Add,
const DataLayout &DL,
AssumptionCache *AC,
const Instruction *CxtI,
const DominatorTree *DT) {
if (Add && Add->hasNoSignedWrap()) {
return OverflowResult::NeverOverflows;
}
bool LHSKnownNonNegative, LHSKnownNegative;
bool RHSKnownNonNegative, RHSKnownNegative;
ComputeSignBit(LHS, LHSKnownNonNegative, LHSKnownNegative, DL, /*Depth=*/0,
AC, CxtI, DT);
ComputeSignBit(RHS, RHSKnownNonNegative, RHSKnownNegative, DL, /*Depth=*/0,
AC, CxtI, DT);
if ((LHSKnownNonNegative && RHSKnownNegative) ||
(LHSKnownNegative && RHSKnownNonNegative)) {
// The sign bits are opposite: this CANNOT overflow.
return OverflowResult::NeverOverflows;
}
// The remaining code needs Add to be available. Early returns if not so.
if (!Add)
return OverflowResult::MayOverflow;
// If the sign of Add is the same as at least one of the operands, this add
// CANNOT overflow. This is particularly useful when the sum is
// @llvm.assume'ed non-negative rather than proved so from analyzing its
// operands.
bool LHSOrRHSKnownNonNegative =
(LHSKnownNonNegative || RHSKnownNonNegative);
bool LHSOrRHSKnownNegative = (LHSKnownNegative || RHSKnownNegative);
if (LHSOrRHSKnownNonNegative || LHSOrRHSKnownNegative) {
bool AddKnownNonNegative, AddKnownNegative;
ComputeSignBit(Add, AddKnownNonNegative, AddKnownNegative, DL,
/*Depth=*/0, AC, CxtI, DT);
if ((AddKnownNonNegative && LHSOrRHSKnownNonNegative) ||
(AddKnownNegative && LHSOrRHSKnownNegative)) {
return OverflowResult::NeverOverflows;
}
}
return OverflowResult::MayOverflow;
}
bool llvm::isOverflowIntrinsicNoWrap(const IntrinsicInst *II,
const DominatorTree &DT) {
#ifndef NDEBUG
auto IID = II->getIntrinsicID();
assert((IID == Intrinsic::sadd_with_overflow ||
IID == Intrinsic::uadd_with_overflow ||
IID == Intrinsic::ssub_with_overflow ||
IID == Intrinsic::usub_with_overflow ||
IID == Intrinsic::smul_with_overflow ||
IID == Intrinsic::umul_with_overflow) &&
"Not an overflow intrinsic!");
#endif
SmallVector<const BranchInst *, 2> GuardingBranches;
SmallVector<const ExtractValueInst *, 2> Results;
for (const User *U : II->users()) {
if (const auto *EVI = dyn_cast<ExtractValueInst>(U)) {
assert(EVI->getNumIndices() == 1 && "Obvious from CI's type");
if (EVI->getIndices()[0] == 0)
Results.push_back(EVI);
else {
assert(EVI->getIndices()[0] == 1 && "Obvious from CI's type");
for (const auto *U : EVI->users())
if (const auto *B = dyn_cast<BranchInst>(U)) {
assert(B->isConditional() && "How else is it using an i1?");
GuardingBranches.push_back(B);
}
}
} else {
// We are using the aggregate directly in a way we don't want to analyze
// here (storing it to a global, say).
return false;
}
}
auto AllUsesGuardedByBranch = [&](const BranchInst *BI) {
BasicBlockEdge NoWrapEdge(BI->getParent(), BI->getSuccessor(1));
if (!NoWrapEdge.isSingleEdge())
return false;
// Check if all users of the add are provably no-wrap.
for (const auto *Result : Results) {
// If the extractvalue itself is not executed on overflow, the we don't
// need to check each use separately, since domination is transitive.
if (DT.dominates(NoWrapEdge, Result->getParent()))
continue;
for (auto &RU : Result->uses())
if (!DT.dominates(NoWrapEdge, RU))
return false;
}
return true;
};
return any_of(GuardingBranches, AllUsesGuardedByBranch);
}
OverflowResult llvm::computeOverflowForSignedAdd(const AddOperator *Add,
const DataLayout &DL,
AssumptionCache *AC,
const Instruction *CxtI,
const DominatorTree *DT) {
return ::computeOverflowForSignedAdd(Add->getOperand(0), Add->getOperand(1),
Add, DL, AC, CxtI, DT);
}
OverflowResult llvm::computeOverflowForSignedAdd(const Value *LHS,
const Value *RHS,
const DataLayout &DL,
AssumptionCache *AC,
const Instruction *CxtI,
const DominatorTree *DT) {
return ::computeOverflowForSignedAdd(LHS, RHS, nullptr, DL, AC, CxtI, DT);
}
bool llvm::isGuaranteedToTransferExecutionToSuccessor(const Instruction *I) {
// A memory operation returns normally if it isn't volatile. A volatile
// operation is allowed to trap.
//
// An atomic operation isn't guaranteed to return in a reasonable amount of
// time because it's possible for another thread to interfere with it for an
// arbitrary length of time, but programs aren't allowed to rely on that.
if (const LoadInst *LI = dyn_cast<LoadInst>(I))
return !LI->isVolatile();
if (const StoreInst *SI = dyn_cast<StoreInst>(I))
return !SI->isVolatile();
if (const AtomicCmpXchgInst *CXI = dyn_cast<AtomicCmpXchgInst>(I))
return !CXI->isVolatile();
if (const AtomicRMWInst *RMWI = dyn_cast<AtomicRMWInst>(I))
return !RMWI->isVolatile();
if (const MemIntrinsic *MII = dyn_cast<MemIntrinsic>(I))
return !MII->isVolatile();
// If there is no successor, then execution can't transfer to it.
if (const auto *CRI = dyn_cast<CleanupReturnInst>(I))
return !CRI->unwindsToCaller();
if (const auto *CatchSwitch = dyn_cast<CatchSwitchInst>(I))
return !CatchSwitch->unwindsToCaller();
if (isa<ResumeInst>(I))
return false;
if (isa<ReturnInst>(I))
return false;
if (isa<UnreachableInst>(I))
return false;
// Calls can throw, or contain an infinite loop, or kill the process.
2017-01-01 06:12:31 +08:00
if (auto CS = ImmutableCallSite(I)) {
// Call sites that throw have implicit non-local control flow.
if (!CS.doesNotThrow())
return false;
// Non-throwing call sites can loop infinitely, call exit/pthread_exit
// etc. and thus not return. However, LLVM already assumes that
//
// - Thread exiting actions are modeled as writes to memory invisible to
// the program.
//
// - Loops that don't have side effects (side effects are volatile/atomic
// stores and IO) always terminate (see http://llvm.org/PR965).
// Furthermore IO itself is also modeled as writes to memory invisible to
// the program.
//
// We rely on those assumptions here, and use the memory effects of the call
// target as a proxy for checking that it always returns.
// FIXME: This isn't aggressive enough; a call which only writes to a global
// is guaranteed to return.
return CS.onlyReadsMemory() || CS.onlyAccessesArgMemory() ||
match(I, m_Intrinsic<Intrinsic::assume>());
}
// Other instructions return normally.
return true;
}
bool llvm::isGuaranteedToExecuteForEveryIteration(const Instruction *I,
const Loop *L) {
// The loop header is guaranteed to be executed for every iteration.
//
// FIXME: Relax this constraint to cover all basic blocks that are
// guaranteed to be executed at every iteration.
if (I->getParent() != L->getHeader()) return false;
for (const Instruction &LI : *L->getHeader()) {
if (&LI == I) return true;
if (!isGuaranteedToTransferExecutionToSuccessor(&LI)) return false;
}
llvm_unreachable("Instruction not contained in its own parent basic block.");
}
bool llvm::propagatesFullPoison(const Instruction *I) {
switch (I->getOpcode()) {
case Instruction::Add:
case Instruction::Sub:
case Instruction::Xor:
case Instruction::Trunc:
case Instruction::BitCast:
case Instruction::AddrSpaceCast:
[ValueTracking] Make poison propagation more aggressive Summary: Motivation: fix PR31181 without regression (the actual fix is still in progress). However, the actual content of PR31181 is not relevant here. This change makes poison propagation more aggressive in the following cases: 1. poision * Val == poison, for any Val. In particular, this changes existing intentional and documented behavior in these two cases: a. Val is 0 b. Val is 2^k * N 2. poison << Val == poison, for any Val 3. getelementptr is poison if any input is poison I think all of these are justified (and are axiomatically true in the new poison / undef model): 1a: we need poison * 0 to be poison to allow transforms like these: A * (B + C) ==> A * B + A * C If poison * 0 were 0 then the above transform could not be allowed since e.g. we could have A = poison, B = 1, C = -1, making the LHS poison * (1 + -1) = poison * 0 = 0 and the RHS poison * 1 + poison * -1 = poison + poison = poison 1b: we need e.g. poison * 4 to be poison since we want to allow A * 4 ==> A + A + A + A If poison * 4 were a value with all of their bits poison except the last four; then we'd not be able to do this transform since then if A were poison the LHS would only be "partially" poison while the RHS would be "full" poison. 2: Same reasoning as (1b), we'd like have the following kinds transforms be legal: A << 1 ==> A + A Reviewers: majnemer, efriedma Subscribers: mcrosier, llvm-commits Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D30185 llvm-svn: 295809
2017-02-22 14:52:32 +08:00
case Instruction::Mul:
case Instruction::Shl:
case Instruction::GetElementPtr:
// These operations all propagate poison unconditionally. Note that poison
// is not any particular value, so xor or subtraction of poison with
// itself still yields poison, not zero.
return true;
case Instruction::AShr:
case Instruction::SExt:
// For these operations, one bit of the input is replicated across
// multiple output bits. A replicated poison bit is still poison.
return true;
case Instruction::ICmp:
// Comparing poison with any value yields poison. This is why, for
// instance, x s< (x +nsw 1) can be folded to true.
return true;
default:
return false;
}
}
const Value *llvm::getGuaranteedNonFullPoisonOp(const Instruction *I) {
switch (I->getOpcode()) {
case Instruction::Store:
return cast<StoreInst>(I)->getPointerOperand();
case Instruction::Load:
return cast<LoadInst>(I)->getPointerOperand();
case Instruction::AtomicCmpXchg:
return cast<AtomicCmpXchgInst>(I)->getPointerOperand();
case Instruction::AtomicRMW:
return cast<AtomicRMWInst>(I)->getPointerOperand();
case Instruction::UDiv:
case Instruction::SDiv:
case Instruction::URem:
case Instruction::SRem:
return I->getOperand(1);
default:
return nullptr;
}
}
bool llvm::isKnownNotFullPoison(const Instruction *PoisonI) {
// We currently only look for uses of poison values within the same basic
// block, as that makes it easier to guarantee that the uses will be
// executed given that PoisonI is executed.
//
// FIXME: Expand this to consider uses beyond the same basic block. To do
// this, look out for the distinction between post-dominance and strong
// post-dominance.
const BasicBlock *BB = PoisonI->getParent();
// Set of instructions that we have proved will yield poison if PoisonI
// does.
SmallSet<const Value *, 16> YieldsPoison;
SmallSet<const BasicBlock *, 4> Visited;
YieldsPoison.insert(PoisonI);
Visited.insert(PoisonI->getParent());
BasicBlock::const_iterator Begin = PoisonI->getIterator(), End = BB->end();
unsigned Iter = 0;
while (Iter++ < MaxDepth) {
for (auto &I : make_range(Begin, End)) {
if (&I != PoisonI) {
const Value *NotPoison = getGuaranteedNonFullPoisonOp(&I);
if (NotPoison != nullptr && YieldsPoison.count(NotPoison))
return true;
if (!isGuaranteedToTransferExecutionToSuccessor(&I))
return false;
}
// Mark poison that propagates from I through uses of I.
if (YieldsPoison.count(&I)) {
for (const User *User : I.users()) {
const Instruction *UserI = cast<Instruction>(User);
if (propagatesFullPoison(UserI))
YieldsPoison.insert(User);
}
}
}
if (auto *NextBB = BB->getSingleSuccessor()) {
if (Visited.insert(NextBB).second) {
BB = NextBB;
Begin = BB->getFirstNonPHI()->getIterator();
End = BB->end();
continue;
}
}
break;
};
return false;
}
static bool isKnownNonNaN(const Value *V, FastMathFlags FMF) {
if (FMF.noNaNs())
return true;
if (auto *C = dyn_cast<ConstantFP>(V))
return !C->isNaN();
return false;
}
static bool isKnownNonZero(const Value *V) {
if (auto *C = dyn_cast<ConstantFP>(V))
return !C->isZero();
return false;
}
/// Match non-obvious integer minimum and maximum sequences.
static SelectPatternResult matchMinMax(CmpInst::Predicate Pred,
Value *CmpLHS, Value *CmpRHS,
Value *TrueVal, Value *FalseVal,
Value *&LHS, Value *&RHS) {
// Assume success. If there's no match, callers should not use these anyway.
LHS = TrueVal;
RHS = FalseVal;
[ValueTracking] recognize variations of 'clamp' to improve codegen (PR31693) By enhancing value tracking, we allow an existing min/max canonicalization to kick in and improve codegen for several targets that have min/max instructions. Unfortunately, recognizing min/max in value tracking may cause us to hit a hack in InstCombiner::visitICmpInst() more often: http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2017-January/109340.html ...but I'm hoping we can remove that soon. Correctness proofs based on Alive: Name: smaxmin Pre: C1 < C2 %cmp2 = icmp slt i8 %x, C2 %min = select i1 %cmp2, i8 %x, i8 C2 %cmp3 = icmp slt i8 %x, C1 %r = select i1 %cmp3, i8 C1, i8 %min => %cmp2 = icmp slt i8 %x, C2 %min = select i1 %cmp2, i8 %x, i8 C2 %cmp1 = icmp sgt i8 %min, C1 %r = select i1 %cmp1, i8 %min, i8 C1 Name: sminmax Pre: C1 > C2 %cmp2 = icmp sgt i8 %x, C2 %max = select i1 %cmp2, i8 %x, i8 C2 %cmp3 = icmp sgt i8 %x, C1 %r = select i1 %cmp3, i8 C1, i8 %max => %cmp2 = icmp sgt i8 %x, C2 %max = select i1 %cmp2, i8 %x, i8 C2 %cmp1 = icmp slt i8 %max, C1 %r = select i1 %cmp1, i8 %max, i8 C1 ---------------------------------------- Optimization: smaxmin Done: 1 Optimization is correct! ---------------------------------------- Optimization: sminmax Done: 1 Optimization is correct! Name: umaxmin Pre: C1 u< C2 %cmp2 = icmp ult i8 %x, C2 %min = select i1 %cmp2, i8 %x, i8 C2 %cmp3 = icmp ult i8 %x, C1 %r = select i1 %cmp3, i8 C1, i8 %min => %cmp2 = icmp ult i8 %x, C2 %min = select i1 %cmp2, i8 %x, i8 C2 %cmp1 = icmp ugt i8 %min, C1 %r = select i1 %cmp1, i8 %min, i8 C1 Name: uminmax Pre: C1 u> C2 %cmp2 = icmp ugt i8 %x, C2 %max = select i1 %cmp2, i8 %x, i8 C2 %cmp3 = icmp ugt i8 %x, C1 %r = select i1 %cmp3, i8 C1, i8 %max => %cmp2 = icmp ugt i8 %x, C2 %max = select i1 %cmp2, i8 %x, i8 C2 %cmp1 = icmp ult i8 %max, C1 %r = select i1 %cmp1, i8 %max, i8 C1 ---------------------------------------- Optimization: umaxmin Done: 1 Optimization is correct! ---------------------------------------- Optimization: uminmax Done: 1 Optimization is correct! llvm-svn: 292660
2017-01-21 06:18:47 +08:00
// Recognize variations of:
// CLAMP(v,l,h) ==> ((v) < (l) ? (l) : ((v) > (h) ? (h) : (v)))
const APInt *C1;
if (CmpRHS == TrueVal && match(CmpRHS, m_APInt(C1))) {
const APInt *C2;
// (X <s C1) ? C1 : SMIN(X, C2) ==> SMAX(SMIN(X, C2), C1)
if (match(FalseVal, m_SMin(m_Specific(CmpLHS), m_APInt(C2))) &&
C1->slt(*C2) && Pred == CmpInst::ICMP_SLT)
[ValueTracking] recognize variations of 'clamp' to improve codegen (PR31693) By enhancing value tracking, we allow an existing min/max canonicalization to kick in and improve codegen for several targets that have min/max instructions. Unfortunately, recognizing min/max in value tracking may cause us to hit a hack in InstCombiner::visitICmpInst() more often: http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2017-January/109340.html ...but I'm hoping we can remove that soon. Correctness proofs based on Alive: Name: smaxmin Pre: C1 < C2 %cmp2 = icmp slt i8 %x, C2 %min = select i1 %cmp2, i8 %x, i8 C2 %cmp3 = icmp slt i8 %x, C1 %r = select i1 %cmp3, i8 C1, i8 %min => %cmp2 = icmp slt i8 %x, C2 %min = select i1 %cmp2, i8 %x, i8 C2 %cmp1 = icmp sgt i8 %min, C1 %r = select i1 %cmp1, i8 %min, i8 C1 Name: sminmax Pre: C1 > C2 %cmp2 = icmp sgt i8 %x, C2 %max = select i1 %cmp2, i8 %x, i8 C2 %cmp3 = icmp sgt i8 %x, C1 %r = select i1 %cmp3, i8 C1, i8 %max => %cmp2 = icmp sgt i8 %x, C2 %max = select i1 %cmp2, i8 %x, i8 C2 %cmp1 = icmp slt i8 %max, C1 %r = select i1 %cmp1, i8 %max, i8 C1 ---------------------------------------- Optimization: smaxmin Done: 1 Optimization is correct! ---------------------------------------- Optimization: sminmax Done: 1 Optimization is correct! Name: umaxmin Pre: C1 u< C2 %cmp2 = icmp ult i8 %x, C2 %min = select i1 %cmp2, i8 %x, i8 C2 %cmp3 = icmp ult i8 %x, C1 %r = select i1 %cmp3, i8 C1, i8 %min => %cmp2 = icmp ult i8 %x, C2 %min = select i1 %cmp2, i8 %x, i8 C2 %cmp1 = icmp ugt i8 %min, C1 %r = select i1 %cmp1, i8 %min, i8 C1 Name: uminmax Pre: C1 u> C2 %cmp2 = icmp ugt i8 %x, C2 %max = select i1 %cmp2, i8 %x, i8 C2 %cmp3 = icmp ugt i8 %x, C1 %r = select i1 %cmp3, i8 C1, i8 %max => %cmp2 = icmp ugt i8 %x, C2 %max = select i1 %cmp2, i8 %x, i8 C2 %cmp1 = icmp ult i8 %max, C1 %r = select i1 %cmp1, i8 %max, i8 C1 ---------------------------------------- Optimization: umaxmin Done: 1 Optimization is correct! ---------------------------------------- Optimization: uminmax Done: 1 Optimization is correct! llvm-svn: 292660
2017-01-21 06:18:47 +08:00
return {SPF_SMAX, SPNB_NA, false};
// (X >s C1) ? C1 : SMAX(X, C2) ==> SMIN(SMAX(X, C2), C1)
if (match(FalseVal, m_SMax(m_Specific(CmpLHS), m_APInt(C2))) &&
C1->sgt(*C2) && Pred == CmpInst::ICMP_SGT)
[ValueTracking] recognize variations of 'clamp' to improve codegen (PR31693) By enhancing value tracking, we allow an existing min/max canonicalization to kick in and improve codegen for several targets that have min/max instructions. Unfortunately, recognizing min/max in value tracking may cause us to hit a hack in InstCombiner::visitICmpInst() more often: http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2017-January/109340.html ...but I'm hoping we can remove that soon. Correctness proofs based on Alive: Name: smaxmin Pre: C1 < C2 %cmp2 = icmp slt i8 %x, C2 %min = select i1 %cmp2, i8 %x, i8 C2 %cmp3 = icmp slt i8 %x, C1 %r = select i1 %cmp3, i8 C1, i8 %min => %cmp2 = icmp slt i8 %x, C2 %min = select i1 %cmp2, i8 %x, i8 C2 %cmp1 = icmp sgt i8 %min, C1 %r = select i1 %cmp1, i8 %min, i8 C1 Name: sminmax Pre: C1 > C2 %cmp2 = icmp sgt i8 %x, C2 %max = select i1 %cmp2, i8 %x, i8 C2 %cmp3 = icmp sgt i8 %x, C1 %r = select i1 %cmp3, i8 C1, i8 %max => %cmp2 = icmp sgt i8 %x, C2 %max = select i1 %cmp2, i8 %x, i8 C2 %cmp1 = icmp slt i8 %max, C1 %r = select i1 %cmp1, i8 %max, i8 C1 ---------------------------------------- Optimization: smaxmin Done: 1 Optimization is correct! ---------------------------------------- Optimization: sminmax Done: 1 Optimization is correct! Name: umaxmin Pre: C1 u< C2 %cmp2 = icmp ult i8 %x, C2 %min = select i1 %cmp2, i8 %x, i8 C2 %cmp3 = icmp ult i8 %x, C1 %r = select i1 %cmp3, i8 C1, i8 %min => %cmp2 = icmp ult i8 %x, C2 %min = select i1 %cmp2, i8 %x, i8 C2 %cmp1 = icmp ugt i8 %min, C1 %r = select i1 %cmp1, i8 %min, i8 C1 Name: uminmax Pre: C1 u> C2 %cmp2 = icmp ugt i8 %x, C2 %max = select i1 %cmp2, i8 %x, i8 C2 %cmp3 = icmp ugt i8 %x, C1 %r = select i1 %cmp3, i8 C1, i8 %max => %cmp2 = icmp ugt i8 %x, C2 %max = select i1 %cmp2, i8 %x, i8 C2 %cmp1 = icmp ult i8 %max, C1 %r = select i1 %cmp1, i8 %max, i8 C1 ---------------------------------------- Optimization: umaxmin Done: 1 Optimization is correct! ---------------------------------------- Optimization: uminmax Done: 1 Optimization is correct! llvm-svn: 292660
2017-01-21 06:18:47 +08:00
return {SPF_SMIN, SPNB_NA, false};
// (X <u C1) ? C1 : UMIN(X, C2) ==> UMAX(UMIN(X, C2), C1)
if (match(FalseVal, m_UMin(m_Specific(CmpLHS), m_APInt(C2))) &&
C1->ult(*C2) && Pred == CmpInst::ICMP_ULT)
[ValueTracking] recognize variations of 'clamp' to improve codegen (PR31693) By enhancing value tracking, we allow an existing min/max canonicalization to kick in and improve codegen for several targets that have min/max instructions. Unfortunately, recognizing min/max in value tracking may cause us to hit a hack in InstCombiner::visitICmpInst() more often: http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2017-January/109340.html ...but I'm hoping we can remove that soon. Correctness proofs based on Alive: Name: smaxmin Pre: C1 < C2 %cmp2 = icmp slt i8 %x, C2 %min = select i1 %cmp2, i8 %x, i8 C2 %cmp3 = icmp slt i8 %x, C1 %r = select i1 %cmp3, i8 C1, i8 %min => %cmp2 = icmp slt i8 %x, C2 %min = select i1 %cmp2, i8 %x, i8 C2 %cmp1 = icmp sgt i8 %min, C1 %r = select i1 %cmp1, i8 %min, i8 C1 Name: sminmax Pre: C1 > C2 %cmp2 = icmp sgt i8 %x, C2 %max = select i1 %cmp2, i8 %x, i8 C2 %cmp3 = icmp sgt i8 %x, C1 %r = select i1 %cmp3, i8 C1, i8 %max => %cmp2 = icmp sgt i8 %x, C2 %max = select i1 %cmp2, i8 %x, i8 C2 %cmp1 = icmp slt i8 %max, C1 %r = select i1 %cmp1, i8 %max, i8 C1 ---------------------------------------- Optimization: smaxmin Done: 1 Optimization is correct! ---------------------------------------- Optimization: sminmax Done: 1 Optimization is correct! Name: umaxmin Pre: C1 u< C2 %cmp2 = icmp ult i8 %x, C2 %min = select i1 %cmp2, i8 %x, i8 C2 %cmp3 = icmp ult i8 %x, C1 %r = select i1 %cmp3, i8 C1, i8 %min => %cmp2 = icmp ult i8 %x, C2 %min = select i1 %cmp2, i8 %x, i8 C2 %cmp1 = icmp ugt i8 %min, C1 %r = select i1 %cmp1, i8 %min, i8 C1 Name: uminmax Pre: C1 u> C2 %cmp2 = icmp ugt i8 %x, C2 %max = select i1 %cmp2, i8 %x, i8 C2 %cmp3 = icmp ugt i8 %x, C1 %r = select i1 %cmp3, i8 C1, i8 %max => %cmp2 = icmp ugt i8 %x, C2 %max = select i1 %cmp2, i8 %x, i8 C2 %cmp1 = icmp ult i8 %max, C1 %r = select i1 %cmp1, i8 %max, i8 C1 ---------------------------------------- Optimization: umaxmin Done: 1 Optimization is correct! ---------------------------------------- Optimization: uminmax Done: 1 Optimization is correct! llvm-svn: 292660
2017-01-21 06:18:47 +08:00
return {SPF_UMAX, SPNB_NA, false};
// (X >u C1) ? C1 : UMAX(X, C2) ==> UMIN(UMAX(X, C2), C1)
if (match(FalseVal, m_UMax(m_Specific(CmpLHS), m_APInt(C2))) &&
C1->ugt(*C2) && Pred == CmpInst::ICMP_UGT)
[ValueTracking] recognize variations of 'clamp' to improve codegen (PR31693) By enhancing value tracking, we allow an existing min/max canonicalization to kick in and improve codegen for several targets that have min/max instructions. Unfortunately, recognizing min/max in value tracking may cause us to hit a hack in InstCombiner::visitICmpInst() more often: http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2017-January/109340.html ...but I'm hoping we can remove that soon. Correctness proofs based on Alive: Name: smaxmin Pre: C1 < C2 %cmp2 = icmp slt i8 %x, C2 %min = select i1 %cmp2, i8 %x, i8 C2 %cmp3 = icmp slt i8 %x, C1 %r = select i1 %cmp3, i8 C1, i8 %min => %cmp2 = icmp slt i8 %x, C2 %min = select i1 %cmp2, i8 %x, i8 C2 %cmp1 = icmp sgt i8 %min, C1 %r = select i1 %cmp1, i8 %min, i8 C1 Name: sminmax Pre: C1 > C2 %cmp2 = icmp sgt i8 %x, C2 %max = select i1 %cmp2, i8 %x, i8 C2 %cmp3 = icmp sgt i8 %x, C1 %r = select i1 %cmp3, i8 C1, i8 %max => %cmp2 = icmp sgt i8 %x, C2 %max = select i1 %cmp2, i8 %x, i8 C2 %cmp1 = icmp slt i8 %max, C1 %r = select i1 %cmp1, i8 %max, i8 C1 ---------------------------------------- Optimization: smaxmin Done: 1 Optimization is correct! ---------------------------------------- Optimization: sminmax Done: 1 Optimization is correct! Name: umaxmin Pre: C1 u< C2 %cmp2 = icmp ult i8 %x, C2 %min = select i1 %cmp2, i8 %x, i8 C2 %cmp3 = icmp ult i8 %x, C1 %r = select i1 %cmp3, i8 C1, i8 %min => %cmp2 = icmp ult i8 %x, C2 %min = select i1 %cmp2, i8 %x, i8 C2 %cmp1 = icmp ugt i8 %min, C1 %r = select i1 %cmp1, i8 %min, i8 C1 Name: uminmax Pre: C1 u> C2 %cmp2 = icmp ugt i8 %x, C2 %max = select i1 %cmp2, i8 %x, i8 C2 %cmp3 = icmp ugt i8 %x, C1 %r = select i1 %cmp3, i8 C1, i8 %max => %cmp2 = icmp ugt i8 %x, C2 %max = select i1 %cmp2, i8 %x, i8 C2 %cmp1 = icmp ult i8 %max, C1 %r = select i1 %cmp1, i8 %max, i8 C1 ---------------------------------------- Optimization: umaxmin Done: 1 Optimization is correct! ---------------------------------------- Optimization: uminmax Done: 1 Optimization is correct! llvm-svn: 292660
2017-01-21 06:18:47 +08:00
return {SPF_UMIN, SPNB_NA, false};
}
if (Pred != CmpInst::ICMP_SGT && Pred != CmpInst::ICMP_SLT)
return {SPF_UNKNOWN, SPNB_NA, false};
// Z = X -nsw Y
// (X >s Y) ? 0 : Z ==> (Z >s 0) ? 0 : Z ==> SMIN(Z, 0)
// (X <s Y) ? 0 : Z ==> (Z <s 0) ? 0 : Z ==> SMAX(Z, 0)
if (match(TrueVal, m_Zero()) &&
match(FalseVal, m_NSWSub(m_Specific(CmpLHS), m_Specific(CmpRHS))))
return {Pred == CmpInst::ICMP_SGT ? SPF_SMIN : SPF_SMAX, SPNB_NA, false};
// Z = X -nsw Y
// (X >s Y) ? Z : 0 ==> (Z >s 0) ? Z : 0 ==> SMAX(Z, 0)
// (X <s Y) ? Z : 0 ==> (Z <s 0) ? Z : 0 ==> SMIN(Z, 0)
if (match(FalseVal, m_Zero()) &&
match(TrueVal, m_NSWSub(m_Specific(CmpLHS), m_Specific(CmpRHS))))
return {Pred == CmpInst::ICMP_SGT ? SPF_SMAX : SPF_SMIN, SPNB_NA, false};
if (!match(CmpRHS, m_APInt(C1)))
return {SPF_UNKNOWN, SPNB_NA, false};
// An unsigned min/max can be written with a signed compare.
const APInt *C2;
if ((CmpLHS == TrueVal && match(FalseVal, m_APInt(C2))) ||
(CmpLHS == FalseVal && match(TrueVal, m_APInt(C2)))) {
// Is the sign bit set?
// (X <s 0) ? X : MAXVAL ==> (X >u MAXVAL) ? X : MAXVAL ==> UMAX
// (X <s 0) ? MAXVAL : X ==> (X >u MAXVAL) ? MAXVAL : X ==> UMIN
if (Pred == CmpInst::ICMP_SLT && *C1 == 0 && C2->isMaxSignedValue())
return {CmpLHS == TrueVal ? SPF_UMAX : SPF_UMIN, SPNB_NA, false};
// Is the sign bit clear?
// (X >s -1) ? MINVAL : X ==> (X <u MINVAL) ? MINVAL : X ==> UMAX
// (X >s -1) ? X : MINVAL ==> (X <u MINVAL) ? X : MINVAL ==> UMIN
if (Pred == CmpInst::ICMP_SGT && C1->isAllOnesValue() &&
C2->isMinSignedValue())
return {CmpLHS == FalseVal ? SPF_UMAX : SPF_UMIN, SPNB_NA, false};
}
// Look through 'not' ops to find disguised signed min/max.
// (X >s C) ? ~X : ~C ==> (~X <s ~C) ? ~X : ~C ==> SMIN(~X, ~C)
// (X <s C) ? ~X : ~C ==> (~X >s ~C) ? ~X : ~C ==> SMAX(~X, ~C)
if (match(TrueVal, m_Not(m_Specific(CmpLHS))) &&
match(FalseVal, m_APInt(C2)) && ~(*C1) == *C2)
return {Pred == CmpInst::ICMP_SGT ? SPF_SMIN : SPF_SMAX, SPNB_NA, false};
// (X >s C) ? ~C : ~X ==> (~X <s ~C) ? ~C : ~X ==> SMAX(~C, ~X)
// (X <s C) ? ~C : ~X ==> (~X >s ~C) ? ~C : ~X ==> SMIN(~C, ~X)
if (match(FalseVal, m_Not(m_Specific(CmpLHS))) &&
match(TrueVal, m_APInt(C2)) && ~(*C1) == *C2)
return {Pred == CmpInst::ICMP_SGT ? SPF_SMAX : SPF_SMIN, SPNB_NA, false};
return {SPF_UNKNOWN, SPNB_NA, false};
}
static SelectPatternResult matchSelectPattern(CmpInst::Predicate Pred,
FastMathFlags FMF,
Value *CmpLHS, Value *CmpRHS,
Value *TrueVal, Value *FalseVal,
Value *&LHS, Value *&RHS) {
LHS = CmpLHS;
RHS = CmpRHS;
// If the predicate is an "or-equal" (FP) predicate, then signed zeroes may
// return inconsistent results between implementations.
// (0.0 <= -0.0) ? 0.0 : -0.0 // Returns 0.0
// minNum(0.0, -0.0) // May return -0.0 or 0.0 (IEEE 754-2008 5.3.1)
// Therefore we behave conservatively and only proceed if at least one of the
// operands is known to not be zero, or if we don't care about signed zeroes.
switch (Pred) {
default: break;
case CmpInst::FCMP_OGE: case CmpInst::FCMP_OLE:
case CmpInst::FCMP_UGE: case CmpInst::FCMP_ULE:
if (!FMF.noSignedZeros() && !isKnownNonZero(CmpLHS) &&
!isKnownNonZero(CmpRHS))
return {SPF_UNKNOWN, SPNB_NA, false};
}
SelectPatternNaNBehavior NaNBehavior = SPNB_NA;
bool Ordered = false;
// When given one NaN and one non-NaN input:
// - maxnum/minnum (C99 fmaxf()/fminf()) return the non-NaN input.
// - A simple C99 (a < b ? a : b) construction will return 'b' (as the
// ordered comparison fails), which could be NaN or non-NaN.
// so here we discover exactly what NaN behavior is required/accepted.
if (CmpInst::isFPPredicate(Pred)) {
bool LHSSafe = isKnownNonNaN(CmpLHS, FMF);
bool RHSSafe = isKnownNonNaN(CmpRHS, FMF);
if (LHSSafe && RHSSafe) {
// Both operands are known non-NaN.
NaNBehavior = SPNB_RETURNS_ANY;
} else if (CmpInst::isOrdered(Pred)) {
// An ordered comparison will return false when given a NaN, so it
// returns the RHS.
Ordered = true;
if (LHSSafe)
// LHS is non-NaN, so if RHS is NaN then NaN will be returned.
NaNBehavior = SPNB_RETURNS_NAN;
else if (RHSSafe)
NaNBehavior = SPNB_RETURNS_OTHER;
else
// Completely unsafe.
return {SPF_UNKNOWN, SPNB_NA, false};
} else {
Ordered = false;
// An unordered comparison will return true when given a NaN, so it
// returns the LHS.
if (LHSSafe)
// LHS is non-NaN, so if RHS is NaN then non-NaN will be returned.
NaNBehavior = SPNB_RETURNS_OTHER;
else if (RHSSafe)
NaNBehavior = SPNB_RETURNS_NAN;
else
// Completely unsafe.
return {SPF_UNKNOWN, SPNB_NA, false};
}
}
if (TrueVal == CmpRHS && FalseVal == CmpLHS) {
std::swap(CmpLHS, CmpRHS);
Pred = CmpInst::getSwappedPredicate(Pred);
if (NaNBehavior == SPNB_RETURNS_NAN)
NaNBehavior = SPNB_RETURNS_OTHER;
else if (NaNBehavior == SPNB_RETURNS_OTHER)
NaNBehavior = SPNB_RETURNS_NAN;
Ordered = !Ordered;
}
// ([if]cmp X, Y) ? X : Y
if (TrueVal == CmpLHS && FalseVal == CmpRHS) {
switch (Pred) {
default: return {SPF_UNKNOWN, SPNB_NA, false}; // Equality.
case ICmpInst::ICMP_UGT:
case ICmpInst::ICMP_UGE: return {SPF_UMAX, SPNB_NA, false};
case ICmpInst::ICMP_SGT:
case ICmpInst::ICMP_SGE: return {SPF_SMAX, SPNB_NA, false};
case ICmpInst::ICMP_ULT:
case ICmpInst::ICMP_ULE: return {SPF_UMIN, SPNB_NA, false};
case ICmpInst::ICMP_SLT:
case ICmpInst::ICMP_SLE: return {SPF_SMIN, SPNB_NA, false};
case FCmpInst::FCMP_UGT:
case FCmpInst::FCMP_UGE:
case FCmpInst::FCMP_OGT:
case FCmpInst::FCMP_OGE: return {SPF_FMAXNUM, NaNBehavior, Ordered};
case FCmpInst::FCMP_ULT:
case FCmpInst::FCMP_ULE:
case FCmpInst::FCMP_OLT:
case FCmpInst::FCMP_OLE: return {SPF_FMINNUM, NaNBehavior, Ordered};
}
}
const APInt *C1;
if (match(CmpRHS, m_APInt(C1))) {
if ((CmpLHS == TrueVal && match(FalseVal, m_Neg(m_Specific(CmpLHS)))) ||
(CmpLHS == FalseVal && match(TrueVal, m_Neg(m_Specific(CmpLHS))))) {
// ABS(X) ==> (X >s 0) ? X : -X and (X >s -1) ? X : -X
// NABS(X) ==> (X >s 0) ? -X : X and (X >s -1) ? -X : X
if (Pred == ICmpInst::ICMP_SGT && (*C1 == 0 || C1->isAllOnesValue())) {
return {(CmpLHS == TrueVal) ? SPF_ABS : SPF_NABS, SPNB_NA, false};
}
// ABS(X) ==> (X <s 0) ? -X : X and (X <s 1) ? -X : X
// NABS(X) ==> (X <s 0) ? X : -X and (X <s 1) ? X : -X
if (Pred == ICmpInst::ICMP_SLT && (*C1 == 0 || *C1 == 1)) {
return {(CmpLHS == FalseVal) ? SPF_ABS : SPF_NABS, SPNB_NA, false};
}
}
}
return matchMinMax(Pred, CmpLHS, CmpRHS, TrueVal, FalseVal, LHS, RHS);
}
static Value *lookThroughCast(CmpInst *CmpI, Value *V1, Value *V2,
Instruction::CastOps *CastOp) {
auto *Cast1 = dyn_cast<CastInst>(V1);
if (!Cast1)
return nullptr;
*CastOp = Cast1->getOpcode();
Type *SrcTy = Cast1->getSrcTy();
if (auto *Cast2 = dyn_cast<CastInst>(V2)) {
// If V1 and V2 are both the same cast from the same type, look through V1.
if (*CastOp == Cast2->getOpcode() && SrcTy == Cast2->getSrcTy())
return Cast2->getOperand(0);
return nullptr;
}
auto *C = dyn_cast<Constant>(V2);
if (!C)
return nullptr;
Constant *CastedTo = nullptr;
switch (*CastOp) {
case Instruction::ZExt:
if (CmpI->isUnsigned())
CastedTo = ConstantExpr::getTrunc(C, SrcTy);
break;
case Instruction::SExt:
if (CmpI->isSigned())
CastedTo = ConstantExpr::getTrunc(C, SrcTy, true);
break;
case Instruction::Trunc:
CastedTo = ConstantExpr::getIntegerCast(C, SrcTy, CmpI->isSigned());
break;
case Instruction::FPTrunc:
CastedTo = ConstantExpr::getFPExtend(C, SrcTy, true);
break;
case Instruction::FPExt:
CastedTo = ConstantExpr::getFPTrunc(C, SrcTy, true);
break;
case Instruction::FPToUI:
CastedTo = ConstantExpr::getUIToFP(C, SrcTy, true);
break;
case Instruction::FPToSI:
CastedTo = ConstantExpr::getSIToFP(C, SrcTy, true);
break;
case Instruction::UIToFP:
CastedTo = ConstantExpr::getFPToUI(C, SrcTy, true);
break;
case Instruction::SIToFP:
CastedTo = ConstantExpr::getFPToSI(C, SrcTy, true);
break;
default:
break;
}
if (!CastedTo)
return nullptr;
// Make sure the cast doesn't lose any information.
Constant *CastedBack =
ConstantExpr::getCast(*CastOp, CastedTo, C->getType(), true);
if (CastedBack != C)
return nullptr;
return CastedTo;
}
2016-05-24 01:57:54 +08:00
SelectPatternResult llvm::matchSelectPattern(Value *V, Value *&LHS, Value *&RHS,
Instruction::CastOps *CastOp) {
SelectInst *SI = dyn_cast<SelectInst>(V);
if (!SI) return {SPF_UNKNOWN, SPNB_NA, false};
CmpInst *CmpI = dyn_cast<CmpInst>(SI->getCondition());
if (!CmpI) return {SPF_UNKNOWN, SPNB_NA, false};
CmpInst::Predicate Pred = CmpI->getPredicate();
Value *CmpLHS = CmpI->getOperand(0);
Value *CmpRHS = CmpI->getOperand(1);
Value *TrueVal = SI->getTrueValue();
Value *FalseVal = SI->getFalseValue();
FastMathFlags FMF;
if (isa<FPMathOperator>(CmpI))
FMF = CmpI->getFastMathFlags();
// Bail out early.
if (CmpI->isEquality())
return {SPF_UNKNOWN, SPNB_NA, false};
// Deal with type mismatches.
if (CastOp && CmpLHS->getType() != TrueVal->getType()) {
if (Value *C = lookThroughCast(CmpI, TrueVal, FalseVal, CastOp))
return ::matchSelectPattern(Pred, FMF, CmpLHS, CmpRHS,
cast<CastInst>(TrueVal)->getOperand(0), C,
LHS, RHS);
if (Value *C = lookThroughCast(CmpI, FalseVal, TrueVal, CastOp))
return ::matchSelectPattern(Pred, FMF, CmpLHS, CmpRHS,
C, cast<CastInst>(FalseVal)->getOperand(0),
LHS, RHS);
}
return ::matchSelectPattern(Pred, FMF, CmpLHS, CmpRHS, TrueVal, FalseVal,
LHS, RHS);
}
/// Return true if "icmp Pred LHS RHS" is always true.
static bool isTruePredicate(CmpInst::Predicate Pred,
const Value *LHS, const Value *RHS,
const DataLayout &DL, unsigned Depth,
AssumptionCache *AC, const Instruction *CxtI,
const DominatorTree *DT) {
assert(!LHS->getType()->isVectorTy() && "TODO: extend to handle vectors!");
if (ICmpInst::isTrueWhenEqual(Pred) && LHS == RHS)
return true;
switch (Pred) {
default:
return false;
case CmpInst::ICMP_SLE: {
const APInt *C;
// LHS s<= LHS +_{nsw} C if C >= 0
if (match(RHS, m_NSWAdd(m_Specific(LHS), m_APInt(C))))
return !C->isNegative();
return false;
}
case CmpInst::ICMP_ULE: {
const APInt *C;
// LHS u<= LHS +_{nuw} C for any C
if (match(RHS, m_NUWAdd(m_Specific(LHS), m_APInt(C))))
return true;
// Match A to (X +_{nuw} CA) and B to (X +_{nuw} CB)
auto MatchNUWAddsToSameValue = [&](const Value *A, const Value *B,
const Value *&X,
const APInt *&CA, const APInt *&CB) {
if (match(A, m_NUWAdd(m_Value(X), m_APInt(CA))) &&
match(B, m_NUWAdd(m_Specific(X), m_APInt(CB))))
return true;
// If X & C == 0 then (X | C) == X +_{nuw} C
if (match(A, m_Or(m_Value(X), m_APInt(CA))) &&
match(B, m_Or(m_Specific(X), m_APInt(CB)))) {
unsigned BitWidth = CA->getBitWidth();
APInt KnownZero(BitWidth, 0), KnownOne(BitWidth, 0);
computeKnownBits(X, KnownZero, KnownOne, DL, Depth + 1, AC, CxtI, DT);
if ((KnownZero & *CA) == *CA && (KnownZero & *CB) == *CB)
return true;
}
return false;
};
const Value *X;
const APInt *CLHS, *CRHS;
if (MatchNUWAddsToSameValue(LHS, RHS, X, CLHS, CRHS))
return CLHS->ule(*CRHS);
return false;
}
}
}
/// Return true if "icmp Pred BLHS BRHS" is true whenever "icmp Pred
/// ALHS ARHS" is true. Otherwise, return None.
static Optional<bool>
isImpliedCondOperands(CmpInst::Predicate Pred, const Value *ALHS,
const Value *ARHS, const Value *BLHS,
const Value *BRHS, const DataLayout &DL,
unsigned Depth, AssumptionCache *AC,
const Instruction *CxtI, const DominatorTree *DT) {
switch (Pred) {
default:
return None;
case CmpInst::ICMP_SLT:
case CmpInst::ICMP_SLE:
if (isTruePredicate(CmpInst::ICMP_SLE, BLHS, ALHS, DL, Depth, AC, CxtI,
DT) &&
isTruePredicate(CmpInst::ICMP_SLE, ARHS, BRHS, DL, Depth, AC, CxtI, DT))
return true;
return None;
case CmpInst::ICMP_ULT:
case CmpInst::ICMP_ULE:
if (isTruePredicate(CmpInst::ICMP_ULE, BLHS, ALHS, DL, Depth, AC, CxtI,
DT) &&
isTruePredicate(CmpInst::ICMP_ULE, ARHS, BRHS, DL, Depth, AC, CxtI, DT))
return true;
return None;
}
}
/// Return true if the operands of the two compares match. IsSwappedOps is true
/// when the operands match, but are swapped.
static bool isMatchingOps(const Value *ALHS, const Value *ARHS,
const Value *BLHS, const Value *BRHS,
bool &IsSwappedOps) {
bool IsMatchingOps = (ALHS == BLHS && ARHS == BRHS);
IsSwappedOps = (ALHS == BRHS && ARHS == BLHS);
return IsMatchingOps || IsSwappedOps;
}
/// Return true if "icmp1 APred ALHS ARHS" implies "icmp2 BPred BLHS BRHS" is
/// true. Return false if "icmp1 APred ALHS ARHS" implies "icmp2 BPred BLHS
/// BRHS" is false. Otherwise, return None if we can't infer anything.
static Optional<bool> isImpliedCondMatchingOperands(CmpInst::Predicate APred,
const Value *ALHS,
const Value *ARHS,
CmpInst::Predicate BPred,
const Value *BLHS,
const Value *BRHS,
bool IsSwappedOps) {
// Canonicalize the operands so they're matching.
if (IsSwappedOps) {
std::swap(BLHS, BRHS);
BPred = ICmpInst::getSwappedPredicate(BPred);
}
if (CmpInst::isImpliedTrueByMatchingCmp(APred, BPred))
return true;
if (CmpInst::isImpliedFalseByMatchingCmp(APred, BPred))
return false;
return None;
}
/// Return true if "icmp1 APred ALHS C1" implies "icmp2 BPred BLHS C2" is
/// true. Return false if "icmp1 APred ALHS C1" implies "icmp2 BPred BLHS
/// C2" is false. Otherwise, return None if we can't infer anything.
static Optional<bool>
isImpliedCondMatchingImmOperands(CmpInst::Predicate APred, const Value *ALHS,
const ConstantInt *C1,
CmpInst::Predicate BPred,
const Value *BLHS, const ConstantInt *C2) {
assert(ALHS == BLHS && "LHS operands must match.");
ConstantRange DomCR =
ConstantRange::makeExactICmpRegion(APred, C1->getValue());
ConstantRange CR =
ConstantRange::makeAllowedICmpRegion(BPred, C2->getValue());
ConstantRange Intersection = DomCR.intersectWith(CR);
ConstantRange Difference = DomCR.difference(CR);
if (Intersection.isEmptySet())
return false;
if (Difference.isEmptySet())
return true;
return None;
}
Optional<bool> llvm::isImpliedCondition(const Value *LHS, const Value *RHS,
const DataLayout &DL, bool InvertAPred,
unsigned Depth, AssumptionCache *AC,
const Instruction *CxtI,
const DominatorTree *DT) {
// A mismatch occurs when we compare a scalar cmp to a vector cmp, for example.
if (LHS->getType() != RHS->getType())
return None;
Type *OpTy = LHS->getType();
assert(OpTy->getScalarType()->isIntegerTy(1));
// LHS ==> RHS by definition
if (!InvertAPred && LHS == RHS)
return true;
if (OpTy->isVectorTy())
// TODO: extending the code below to handle vectors
return None;
assert(OpTy->isIntegerTy(1) && "implied by above");
ICmpInst::Predicate APred, BPred;
Value *ALHS, *ARHS;
Value *BLHS, *BRHS;
if (!match(LHS, m_ICmp(APred, m_Value(ALHS), m_Value(ARHS))) ||
!match(RHS, m_ICmp(BPred, m_Value(BLHS), m_Value(BRHS))))
return None;
if (InvertAPred)
APred = CmpInst::getInversePredicate(APred);
// Can we infer anything when the two compares have matching operands?
bool IsSwappedOps;
if (isMatchingOps(ALHS, ARHS, BLHS, BRHS, IsSwappedOps)) {
if (Optional<bool> Implication = isImpliedCondMatchingOperands(
APred, ALHS, ARHS, BPred, BLHS, BRHS, IsSwappedOps))
return Implication;
// No amount of additional analysis will infer the second condition, so
// early exit.
return None;
}
// Can we infer anything when the LHS operands match and the RHS operands are
// constants (not necessarily matching)?
if (ALHS == BLHS && isa<ConstantInt>(ARHS) && isa<ConstantInt>(BRHS)) {
if (Optional<bool> Implication = isImpliedCondMatchingImmOperands(
APred, ALHS, cast<ConstantInt>(ARHS), BPred, BLHS,
cast<ConstantInt>(BRHS)))
return Implication;
// No amount of additional analysis will infer the second condition, so
// early exit.
return None;
}
if (APred == BPred)
return isImpliedCondOperands(APred, ALHS, ARHS, BLHS, BRHS, DL, Depth, AC,
CxtI, DT);
return None;
}