maxjhandsome
/
llvm-project
forked from OSchip/llvm-project
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Packages Releases Wiki Activity
llvm-project/llvm/test/Transforms/InstCombine/fold-inc-of-add-of-not-x-an...

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

214 lines
6.3 KiB
LLVM
Raw Normal View History

[NFC][InstCombine] Tests for ((~x) + y) + 1 -> y - x fold fold (PR42459) To be noted, this pattern is not unhandled by instcombine per-se, it is somehow does end up being folded when one runs opt -O3, but not if it's just -instcombine. Regardless, that fold is indirect, depends on some other folds, and is thus blind when there are extra uses. https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=42459 https://rise4fun.com/Alive/EPO0 llvm-svn: 364749
2019-07-01 20:22:06 +08:00
; NOTE: Assertions have been autogenerated by utils/update_test_checks.py
; RUN: opt -instcombine -S < %s | FileCheck %s
; Given:
; add (add (xor %x, -1), %y), 1
; Transform it to:
; sub %y, %x
;------------------------------------------------------------------------------;
; Scalar tests
;------------------------------------------------------------------------------;
define i32 @t0(i32 %x, i32 %y) {
; CHECK-LABEL: @t0(
[InstCombine] (Y + ~X) + 1 --> Y - X fold (PR42459) Summary: To be noted, this pattern is not unhandled by instcombine per-se, it is somehow does end up being folded when one runs opt -O3, but not if it's just -instcombine. Regardless, that fold is indirect, depends on some other folds, and is thus blind when there are extra uses. This does address the regression being exposed in D63992. https://godbolt.org/z/7DGltU https://rise4fun.com/Alive/EPO0 Fixes [[ https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=42459 | PR42459 ]] Reviewers: spatel, nikic, huihuiz Reviewed By: spatel Subscribers: llvm-commits Tags: #llvm Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D63993 llvm-svn: 364792
2019-07-01 23:55:24 +08:00
; CHECK-NEXT: [[T2:%.*]] = sub i32 [[Y:%.*]], [[X:%.*]]
[NFC][InstCombine] Tests for ((~x) + y) + 1 -> y - x fold fold (PR42459) To be noted, this pattern is not unhandled by instcombine per-se, it is somehow does end up being folded when one runs opt -O3, but not if it's just -instcombine. Regardless, that fold is indirect, depends on some other folds, and is thus blind when there are extra uses. https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=42459 https://rise4fun.com/Alive/EPO0 llvm-svn: 364749
2019-07-01 20:22:06 +08:00
; CHECK-NEXT: ret i32 [[T2]]
;
%t0 = xor i32 %x, -1
%t1 = add i32 %t0, %y
%t2 = add i32 %t1, 1
ret i32 %t2
}
;------------------------------------------------------------------------------;
; Vector tests
;------------------------------------------------------------------------------;
define <4 x i32> @t1_vec_splat(<4 x i32> %x, <4 x i32> %y) {
; CHECK-LABEL: @t1_vec_splat(
[InstCombine] (Y + ~X) + 1 --> Y - X fold (PR42459) Summary: To be noted, this pattern is not unhandled by instcombine per-se, it is somehow does end up being folded when one runs opt -O3, but not if it's just -instcombine. Regardless, that fold is indirect, depends on some other folds, and is thus blind when there are extra uses. This does address the regression being exposed in D63992. https://godbolt.org/z/7DGltU https://rise4fun.com/Alive/EPO0 Fixes [[ https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=42459 | PR42459 ]] Reviewers: spatel, nikic, huihuiz Reviewed By: spatel Subscribers: llvm-commits Tags: #llvm Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D63993 llvm-svn: 364792
2019-07-01 23:55:24 +08:00
; CHECK-NEXT: [[T2:%.*]] = sub <4 x i32> [[Y:%.*]], [[X:%.*]]
[NFC][InstCombine] Tests for ((~x) + y) + 1 -> y - x fold fold (PR42459) To be noted, this pattern is not unhandled by instcombine per-se, it is somehow does end up being folded when one runs opt -O3, but not if it's just -instcombine. Regardless, that fold is indirect, depends on some other folds, and is thus blind when there are extra uses. https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=42459 https://rise4fun.com/Alive/EPO0 llvm-svn: 364749
2019-07-01 20:22:06 +08:00
; CHECK-NEXT: ret <4 x i32> [[T2]]
;
%t0 = xor <4 x i32> %x, <i32 -1, i32 -1, i32 -1, i32 -1>
%t1 = add <4 x i32> %t0, %y
%t2 = add <4 x i32> %t1, <i32 1, i32 1, i32 1, i32 1>
ret <4 x i32> %t2
}
define <4 x i32> @t2_vec_undef0(<4 x i32> %x, <4 x i32> %y) {
; CHECK-LABEL: @t2_vec_undef0(
[InstCombine] (Y + ~X) + 1 --> Y - X fold (PR42459) Summary: To be noted, this pattern is not unhandled by instcombine per-se, it is somehow does end up being folded when one runs opt -O3, but not if it's just -instcombine. Regardless, that fold is indirect, depends on some other folds, and is thus blind when there are extra uses. This does address the regression being exposed in D63992. https://godbolt.org/z/7DGltU https://rise4fun.com/Alive/EPO0 Fixes [[ https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=42459 | PR42459 ]] Reviewers: spatel, nikic, huihuiz Reviewed By: spatel Subscribers: llvm-commits Tags: #llvm Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D63993 llvm-svn: 364792
2019-07-01 23:55:24 +08:00
; CHECK-NEXT: [[T2:%.*]] = sub <4 x i32> [[Y:%.*]], [[X:%.*]]
[NFC][InstCombine] Tests for ((~x) + y) + 1 -> y - x fold fold (PR42459) To be noted, this pattern is not unhandled by instcombine per-se, it is somehow does end up being folded when one runs opt -O3, but not if it's just -instcombine. Regardless, that fold is indirect, depends on some other folds, and is thus blind when there are extra uses. https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=42459 https://rise4fun.com/Alive/EPO0 llvm-svn: 364749
2019-07-01 20:22:06 +08:00
; CHECK-NEXT: ret <4 x i32> [[T2]]
;
%t0 = xor <4 x i32> %x, <i32 -1, i32 -1, i32 undef, i32 -1>
%t1 = add <4 x i32> %t0, %y
%t2 = add <4 x i32> %t1, <i32 1, i32 1, i32 1, i32 1>
ret <4 x i32> %t2
}
define <4 x i32> @t3_vec_undef1(<4 x i32> %x, <4 x i32> %y) {
; CHECK-LABEL: @t3_vec_undef1(
[InstCombine] (Y + ~X) + 1 --> Y - X fold (PR42459) Summary: To be noted, this pattern is not unhandled by instcombine per-se, it is somehow does end up being folded when one runs opt -O3, but not if it's just -instcombine. Regardless, that fold is indirect, depends on some other folds, and is thus blind when there are extra uses. This does address the regression being exposed in D63992. https://godbolt.org/z/7DGltU https://rise4fun.com/Alive/EPO0 Fixes [[ https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=42459 | PR42459 ]] Reviewers: spatel, nikic, huihuiz Reviewed By: spatel Subscribers: llvm-commits Tags: #llvm Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D63993 llvm-svn: 364792
2019-07-01 23:55:24 +08:00
; CHECK-NEXT: [[T2:%.*]] = sub <4 x i32> [[Y:%.*]], [[X:%.*]]
[NFC][InstCombine] Tests for ((~x) + y) + 1 -> y - x fold fold (PR42459) To be noted, this pattern is not unhandled by instcombine per-se, it is somehow does end up being folded when one runs opt -O3, but not if it's just -instcombine. Regardless, that fold is indirect, depends on some other folds, and is thus blind when there are extra uses. https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=42459 https://rise4fun.com/Alive/EPO0 llvm-svn: 364749
2019-07-01 20:22:06 +08:00
; CHECK-NEXT: ret <4 x i32> [[T2]]
;
%t0 = xor <4 x i32> %x, <i32 -1, i32 -1, i32 -1, i32 -1>
%t1 = add <4 x i32> %t0, %y
%t2 = add <4 x i32> %t1, <i32 1, i32 1, i32 undef, i32 1>
ret <4 x i32> %t2
}
define <4 x i32> @t4_vec_undef2(<4 x i32> %x, <4 x i32> %y) {
; CHECK-LABEL: @t4_vec_undef2(
[InstCombine] (Y + ~X) + 1 --> Y - X fold (PR42459) Summary: To be noted, this pattern is not unhandled by instcombine per-se, it is somehow does end up being folded when one runs opt -O3, but not if it's just -instcombine. Regardless, that fold is indirect, depends on some other folds, and is thus blind when there are extra uses. This does address the regression being exposed in D63992. https://godbolt.org/z/7DGltU https://rise4fun.com/Alive/EPO0 Fixes [[ https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=42459 | PR42459 ]] Reviewers: spatel, nikic, huihuiz Reviewed By: spatel Subscribers: llvm-commits Tags: #llvm Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D63993 llvm-svn: 364792
2019-07-01 23:55:24 +08:00
; CHECK-NEXT: [[T2:%.*]] = sub <4 x i32> [[Y:%.*]], [[X:%.*]]
[NFC][InstCombine] Tests for ((~x) + y) + 1 -> y - x fold fold (PR42459) To be noted, this pattern is not unhandled by instcombine per-se, it is somehow does end up being folded when one runs opt -O3, but not if it's just -instcombine. Regardless, that fold is indirect, depends on some other folds, and is thus blind when there are extra uses. https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=42459 https://rise4fun.com/Alive/EPO0 llvm-svn: 364749
2019-07-01 20:22:06 +08:00
; CHECK-NEXT: ret <4 x i32> [[T2]]
;
%t0 = xor <4 x i32> %x, <i32 -1, i32 -1, i32 undef, i32 -1>
%t1 = add <4 x i32> %t0, %y
%t2 = add <4 x i32> %t1, <i32 1, i32 1, i32 undef, i32 1>
ret <4 x i32> %t2
}
;------------------------------------------------------------------------------;
; One-use tests
;------------------------------------------------------------------------------;
declare void @use32(i32)
define i32 @t5(i32 %x, i32 %y) {
; CHECK-LABEL: @t5(
; CHECK-NEXT: [[T0:%.*]] = xor i32 [[X:%.*]], -1
; CHECK-NEXT: call void @use32(i32 [[T0]])
[InstCombine] (Y + ~X) + 1 --> Y - X fold (PR42459) Summary: To be noted, this pattern is not unhandled by instcombine per-se, it is somehow does end up being folded when one runs opt -O3, but not if it's just -instcombine. Regardless, that fold is indirect, depends on some other folds, and is thus blind when there are extra uses. This does address the regression being exposed in D63992. https://godbolt.org/z/7DGltU https://rise4fun.com/Alive/EPO0 Fixes [[ https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=42459 | PR42459 ]] Reviewers: spatel, nikic, huihuiz Reviewed By: spatel Subscribers: llvm-commits Tags: #llvm Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D63993 llvm-svn: 364792
2019-07-01 23:55:24 +08:00
; CHECK-NEXT: [[T2:%.*]] = sub i32 [[Y:%.*]], [[X]]
[NFC][InstCombine] Tests for ((~x) + y) + 1 -> y - x fold fold (PR42459) To be noted, this pattern is not unhandled by instcombine per-se, it is somehow does end up being folded when one runs opt -O3, but not if it's just -instcombine. Regardless, that fold is indirect, depends on some other folds, and is thus blind when there are extra uses. https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=42459 https://rise4fun.com/Alive/EPO0 llvm-svn: 364749
2019-07-01 20:22:06 +08:00
; CHECK-NEXT: ret i32 [[T2]]
;
%t0 = xor i32 %x, -1
call void @use32(i32 %t0)
%t1 = add i32 %t0, %y
%t2 = add i32 %t1, 1
ret i32 %t2
}
define i32 @t6(i32 %x, i32 %y) {
; CHECK-LABEL: @t6(
; CHECK-NEXT: [[T0:%.*]] = xor i32 [[X:%.*]], -1
; CHECK-NEXT: [[T1:%.*]] = add i32 [[T0]], [[Y:%.*]]
; CHECK-NEXT: call void @use32(i32 [[T1]])
[InstCombine] (Y + ~X) + 1 --> Y - X fold (PR42459) Summary: To be noted, this pattern is not unhandled by instcombine per-se, it is somehow does end up being folded when one runs opt -O3, but not if it's just -instcombine. Regardless, that fold is indirect, depends on some other folds, and is thus blind when there are extra uses. This does address the regression being exposed in D63992. https://godbolt.org/z/7DGltU https://rise4fun.com/Alive/EPO0 Fixes [[ https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=42459 | PR42459 ]] Reviewers: spatel, nikic, huihuiz Reviewed By: spatel Subscribers: llvm-commits Tags: #llvm Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D63993 llvm-svn: 364792
2019-07-01 23:55:24 +08:00
; CHECK-NEXT: [[T2:%.*]] = sub i32 [[Y]], [[X]]
[NFC][InstCombine] Tests for ((~x) + y) + 1 -> y - x fold fold (PR42459) To be noted, this pattern is not unhandled by instcombine per-se, it is somehow does end up being folded when one runs opt -O3, but not if it's just -instcombine. Regardless, that fold is indirect, depends on some other folds, and is thus blind when there are extra uses. https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=42459 https://rise4fun.com/Alive/EPO0 llvm-svn: 364749
2019-07-01 20:22:06 +08:00
; CHECK-NEXT: ret i32 [[T2]]
;
%t0 = xor i32 %x, -1
%t1 = add i32 %t0, %y
call void @use32(i32 %t1)
%t2 = add i32 %t1, 1
ret i32 %t2
}
define i32 @t7(i32 %x, i32 %y) {
; CHECK-LABEL: @t7(
; CHECK-NEXT: [[T0:%.*]] = xor i32 [[X:%.*]], -1
; CHECK-NEXT: call void @use32(i32 [[T0]])
; CHECK-NEXT: [[T1:%.*]] = add i32 [[T0]], [[Y:%.*]]
; CHECK-NEXT: call void @use32(i32 [[T1]])
[InstCombine] (Y + ~X) + 1 --> Y - X fold (PR42459) Summary: To be noted, this pattern is not unhandled by instcombine per-se, it is somehow does end up being folded when one runs opt -O3, but not if it's just -instcombine. Regardless, that fold is indirect, depends on some other folds, and is thus blind when there are extra uses. This does address the regression being exposed in D63992. https://godbolt.org/z/7DGltU https://rise4fun.com/Alive/EPO0 Fixes [[ https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=42459 | PR42459 ]] Reviewers: spatel, nikic, huihuiz Reviewed By: spatel Subscribers: llvm-commits Tags: #llvm Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D63993 llvm-svn: 364792
2019-07-01 23:55:24 +08:00
; CHECK-NEXT: [[T2:%.*]] = sub i32 [[Y]], [[X]]
[NFC][InstCombine] Tests for ((~x) + y) + 1 -> y - x fold fold (PR42459) To be noted, this pattern is not unhandled by instcombine per-se, it is somehow does end up being folded when one runs opt -O3, but not if it's just -instcombine. Regardless, that fold is indirect, depends on some other folds, and is thus blind when there are extra uses. https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=42459 https://rise4fun.com/Alive/EPO0 llvm-svn: 364749
2019-07-01 20:22:06 +08:00
; CHECK-NEXT: ret i32 [[T2]]
;
%t0 = xor i32 %x, -1
call void @use32(i32 %t0)
%t1 = add i32 %t0, %y
call void @use32(i32 %t1)
%t2 = add i32 %t1, 1
ret i32 %t2
}
;------------------------------------------------------------------------------;
; Commutativity
;------------------------------------------------------------------------------;
declare i32 @gen32()
[NFC][InstCombine] Improve test coverage for ((~x) + y) + 1 -> y - x fold fold (PR42459) So we indeed to have this fold, but only if +1 is not the last operation.. llvm-svn: 364764
2019-07-01 21:31:06 +08:00
define i32 @t8_commutative0(i32 %x) {
; CHECK-LABEL: @t8_commutative0(
[NFC][InstCombine] Tests for ((~x) + y) + 1 -> y - x fold fold (PR42459) To be noted, this pattern is not unhandled by instcombine per-se, it is somehow does end up being folded when one runs opt -O3, but not if it's just -instcombine. Regardless, that fold is indirect, depends on some other folds, and is thus blind when there are extra uses. https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=42459 https://rise4fun.com/Alive/EPO0 llvm-svn: 364749
2019-07-01 20:22:06 +08:00
; CHECK-NEXT: [[Y:%.*]] = call i32 @gen32()
; CHECK-NEXT: [[T0:%.*]] = xor i32 [[X:%.*]], -1
[NFC][InstCombine] Improve test coverage for ((~x) + y) + 1 -> y - x fold fold (PR42459) So we indeed to have this fold, but only if +1 is not the last operation.. llvm-svn: 364764
2019-07-01 21:31:06 +08:00
; CHECK-NEXT: call void @use32(i32 [[T0]])
[NFC][InstCombine] Tests for ((~x) + y) + 1 -> y - x fold fold (PR42459) To be noted, this pattern is not unhandled by instcombine per-se, it is somehow does end up being folded when one runs opt -O3, but not if it's just -instcombine. Regardless, that fold is indirect, depends on some other folds, and is thus blind when there are extra uses. https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=42459 https://rise4fun.com/Alive/EPO0 llvm-svn: 364749
2019-07-01 20:22:06 +08:00
; CHECK-NEXT: [[T1:%.*]] = add i32 [[Y]], [[T0]]
[NFC][InstCombine] Improve test coverage for ((~x) + y) + 1 -> y - x fold fold (PR42459) So we indeed to have this fold, but only if +1 is not the last operation.. llvm-svn: 364764
2019-07-01 21:31:06 +08:00
; CHECK-NEXT: call void @use32(i32 [[T1]])
[InstCombine] (Y + ~X) + 1 --> Y - X fold (PR42459) Summary: To be noted, this pattern is not unhandled by instcombine per-se, it is somehow does end up being folded when one runs opt -O3, but not if it's just -instcombine. Regardless, that fold is indirect, depends on some other folds, and is thus blind when there are extra uses. This does address the regression being exposed in D63992. https://godbolt.org/z/7DGltU https://rise4fun.com/Alive/EPO0 Fixes [[ https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=42459 | PR42459 ]] Reviewers: spatel, nikic, huihuiz Reviewed By: spatel Subscribers: llvm-commits Tags: #llvm Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D63993 llvm-svn: 364792
2019-07-01 23:55:24 +08:00
; CHECK-NEXT: [[T2:%.*]] = sub i32 [[Y]], [[X]]
[NFC][InstCombine] Tests for ((~x) + y) + 1 -> y - x fold fold (PR42459) To be noted, this pattern is not unhandled by instcombine per-se, it is somehow does end up being folded when one runs opt -O3, but not if it's just -instcombine. Regardless, that fold is indirect, depends on some other folds, and is thus blind when there are extra uses. https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=42459 https://rise4fun.com/Alive/EPO0 llvm-svn: 364749
2019-07-01 20:22:06 +08:00
; CHECK-NEXT: ret i32 [[T2]]
;
%y = call i32 @gen32()
%t0 = xor i32 %x, -1
[NFC][InstCombine] Improve test coverage for ((~x) + y) + 1 -> y - x fold fold (PR42459) So we indeed to have this fold, but only if +1 is not the last operation.. llvm-svn: 364764
2019-07-01 21:31:06 +08:00
call void @use32(i32 %t0)
[NFC][InstCombine] Tests for ((~x) + y) + 1 -> y - x fold fold (PR42459) To be noted, this pattern is not unhandled by instcombine per-se, it is somehow does end up being folded when one runs opt -O3, but not if it's just -instcombine. Regardless, that fold is indirect, depends on some other folds, and is thus blind when there are extra uses. https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=42459 https://rise4fun.com/Alive/EPO0 llvm-svn: 364749
2019-07-01 20:22:06 +08:00
%t1 = add i32 %y, %t0 ; swapped
[NFC][InstCombine] Improve test coverage for ((~x) + y) + 1 -> y - x fold fold (PR42459) So we indeed to have this fold, but only if +1 is not the last operation.. llvm-svn: 364764
2019-07-01 21:31:06 +08:00
call void @use32(i32 %t1)
[NFC][InstCombine] Tests for ((~x) + y) + 1 -> y - x fold fold (PR42459) To be noted, this pattern is not unhandled by instcombine per-se, it is somehow does end up being folded when one runs opt -O3, but not if it's just -instcombine. Regardless, that fold is indirect, depends on some other folds, and is thus blind when there are extra uses. https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=42459 https://rise4fun.com/Alive/EPO0 llvm-svn: 364749
2019-07-01 20:22:06 +08:00
%t2 = add i32 %t1, 1
ret i32 %t2
}
[NFC][InstCombine] Improve test coverage for ((~x) + y) + 1 -> y - x fold fold (PR42459) So we indeed to have this fold, but only if +1 is not the last operation.. llvm-svn: 364764
2019-07-01 21:31:06 +08:00
define i32 @t9_commutative1(i32 %x, i32 %y) {
; CHECK-LABEL: @t9_commutative1(
; CHECK-NEXT: [[T0:%.*]] = xor i32 [[X:%.*]], -1
; CHECK-NEXT: call void @use32(i32 [[T0]])
; CHECK-NEXT: [[T1:%.*]] = sub i32 0, [[X]]
; CHECK-NEXT: call void @use32(i32 [[T1]])
; CHECK-NEXT: [[T2:%.*]] = sub i32 [[Y:%.*]], [[X]]
; CHECK-NEXT: ret i32 [[T2]]
;
%t0 = xor i32 %x, -1
call void @use32(i32 %t0)
%t1 = add i32 %t0, 1 ; +1 is not last
call void @use32(i32 %t1)
%t2 = add i32 %t1, %y ;
ret i32 %t2
}
define i32 @t10_commutative2(i32 %x) {
; CHECK-LABEL: @t10_commutative2(
; CHECK-NEXT: [[Y:%.*]] = call i32 @gen32()
; CHECK-NEXT: [[T0:%.*]] = xor i32 [[X:%.*]], -1
; CHECK-NEXT: call void @use32(i32 [[T0]])
; CHECK-NEXT: [[T1:%.*]] = sub i32 0, [[X]]
; CHECK-NEXT: call void @use32(i32 [[T1]])
; CHECK-NEXT: [[T2:%.*]] = sub i32 [[Y]], [[X]]
; CHECK-NEXT: ret i32 [[T2]]
;
%y = call i32 @gen32()
%t0 = xor i32 %x, -1
call void @use32(i32 %t0)
%t1 = add i32 %t0, 1 ; +1 is not last
call void @use32(i32 %t1)
%t2 = add i32 %y, %t1 ; swapped
ret i32 %t2
}
[NFC][InstCombine] Tests for ((~x) + y) + 1 -> y - x fold fold (PR42459) To be noted, this pattern is not unhandled by instcombine per-se, it is somehow does end up being folded when one runs opt -O3, but not if it's just -instcombine. Regardless, that fold is indirect, depends on some other folds, and is thus blind when there are extra uses. https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=42459 https://rise4fun.com/Alive/EPO0 llvm-svn: 364749
2019-07-01 20:22:06 +08:00
;------------------------------------------------------------------------------;
; Basic negative tests
;------------------------------------------------------------------------------;
[NFC][InstCombine] Improve test coverage for ((~x) + y) + 1 -> y - x fold fold (PR42459) So we indeed to have this fold, but only if +1 is not the last operation.. llvm-svn: 364764
2019-07-01 21:31:06 +08:00
define i32 @n11(i32 %x, i32 %y) {
; CHECK-LABEL: @n11(
[NFC][InstCombine] Tests for ((~x) + y) + 1 -> y - x fold fold (PR42459) To be noted, this pattern is not unhandled by instcombine per-se, it is somehow does end up being folded when one runs opt -O3, but not if it's just -instcombine. Regardless, that fold is indirect, depends on some other folds, and is thus blind when there are extra uses. https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=42459 https://rise4fun.com/Alive/EPO0 llvm-svn: 364749
2019-07-01 20:22:06 +08:00
; CHECK-NEXT: [[T0:%.*]] = xor i32 [[X:%.*]], 2147483647
; CHECK-NEXT: [[T1:%.*]] = add i32 [[T0]], [[Y:%.*]]
; CHECK-NEXT: [[T2:%.*]] = add i32 [[T1]], 1
; CHECK-NEXT: ret i32 [[T2]]
;
%t0 = xor i32 %x, 2147483647 ; not -1
%t1 = add i32 %t0, %y
%t2 = add i32 %t1, 1
ret i32 %t2
}
[NFC][InstCombine] Improve test coverage for ((~x) + y) + 1 -> y - x fold fold (PR42459) So we indeed to have this fold, but only if +1 is not the last operation.. llvm-svn: 364764
2019-07-01 21:31:06 +08:00
define i32 @n12(i32 %x, i32 %y) {
; CHECK-LABEL: @n12(
[NFC][InstCombine] Tests for ((~x) + y) + 1 -> y - x fold fold (PR42459) To be noted, this pattern is not unhandled by instcombine per-se, it is somehow does end up being folded when one runs opt -O3, but not if it's just -instcombine. Regardless, that fold is indirect, depends on some other folds, and is thus blind when there are extra uses. https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=42459 https://rise4fun.com/Alive/EPO0 llvm-svn: 364749
2019-07-01 20:22:06 +08:00
; CHECK-NEXT: [[T0:%.*]] = xor i32 [[X:%.*]], -1
; CHECK-NEXT: [[T1:%.*]] = add i32 [[T0]], [[Y:%.*]]
; CHECK-NEXT: [[T2:%.*]] = add i32 [[T1]], 2
; CHECK-NEXT: ret i32 [[T2]]
;
%t0 = xor i32 %x, -1
%t1 = add i32 %t0, %y
%t2 = add i32 %t1, 2 ; not +1
ret i32 %t2
}