(X & INT_MIN) ? X & INT_MAX : X into X & INT_MAX
(X & INT_MIN) ? X : X & INT_MAX into X
(X & INT_MIN) ? X | INT_MIN : X into X
(X & INT_MIN) ? X : X | INT_MIN into X | INT_MIN
llvm-svn: 224669
We can always choose an value for undef which might cause %V to shift
out an important bit except for one case, when %V is zero.
However, shl behaves like an identity function when the right hand side
is zero.
llvm-svn: 224405
Reapply r223347, with a fix to not crash on uninserted instructions (or more
precisely, instructions in uninserted blocks). bugpoint was able to reduce the
test case somewhat, but it is still somewhat large (and relies on setting
things up to be simplified during inlining), so I've not included it here.
Nevertheless, it is clear what is going on and why.
Original commit message:
Restrict somewhat the memory-allocation pointer cmp opt from r223093
Based on review comments from Richard Smith, restrict this optimization from
applying to globals that might resolve lazily to other dynamically-loaded
modules, and also from dynamic allocas (which might be transformed into malloc
calls). In short, take extra care that the compared-to pointer is really
simultaneously live with the memory allocation.
llvm-svn: 223371
Based on review comments from Richard Smith, restrict this optimization from
applying to globals that might resolve lazily to other dynamically-loaded
modules, and also from dynamic allocas (which might be transformed into malloc
calls). In short, take extra care that the compared-to pointer is really
simultaneously live with the memory allocation.
llvm-svn: 223347
System memory allocation functions, which are identified at the IR level by the
noalias attribute on the return value, must return a pointer into a memory region
disjoint from any other memory accessible to the caller. We can use this
property to simplify pointer comparisons between allocated memory and local
stack addresses and the addresses of global variables. Neither the stack nor
global variables can overlap with the region used by the memory allocator.
Fixes PR21556.
llvm-svn: 223093
This restores our ability to optimize:
(X & C) ? X & ~C : X into X & ~C
(X & C) ? X : X & ~C into X
(X & C) ? X | C : X into X
(X & C) ? X : X | C into X | C
llvm-svn: 222868
This handles cases where we are comparing a masked value against itself.
The analysis could be further improved by making it recursive but such
expense is not currently justified.
llvm-svn: 222716
Exact shifts may not shift out any non-zero bits. Use computeKnownBits
to determine when this occurs and just return the left hand side.
This fixes PR21477.
llvm-svn: 221325
ConstantFolding crashes when trying to InstSimplify the following load:
@a = private unnamed_addr constant %mst {
i8* inttoptr (i64 -1 to i8*),
i8* inttoptr (i64 -1 to i8*)
}, align 8
%x = load <2 x i8*>* bitcast (%mst* @a to <2 x i8*>*), align 8
This patch fix this by adding support to this type of folding:
%x = load <2 x i8*>* bitcast (%mst* @a to <2 x i8*>*), align 8
==> gets folded to:
%x = <2 x i8*> <i8* inttoptr (i64 -1 to i8*), i8* inttoptr (i64 -1 to i8*)>
llvm-svn: 220380
This function was complicated by the fact that it tried to perform
canonicalizations that were already preformed by InstSimplify. Remove
this extra code and move the tests over to InstSimplify. Add asserts to
make sure our preconditions hold before we make any assumptions.
llvm-svn: 220314
The newly introduced 'nonnull' metadata is analogous to existing 'nonnull' attributes, but applies to load instructions rather than call arguments or returns. Long term, it would be nice to combine these into a single construct. The value of the load is allowed to vary between successive loads, but null is not a valid value to be loaded by any load marked nonnull.
Reviewed by: Hal Finkel
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D5220
llvm-svn: 220240
Reapply r216913, a fix for PR20832 by Andrea Di Biagio. The commit was reverted
because of buildbot failures, and credit goes to Ulrich Weigand for isolating
the underlying issue (which can be confirmed by Valgrind, which does helpfully
light up like the fourth of July). Uli explained the problem with the original
patch as:
It seems the problem is calling multiplySignificand with an addend of category
fcZero; that is not expected by this routine. Note that for fcZero, the
significand parts are simply uninitialized, but the code in (or rather, called
from) multiplySignificand will unconditionally access them -- in effect using
uninitialized contents.
This version avoids using a category == fcZero addend within
multiplySignificand, which avoids this problem (the Valgrind output is also now
clean).
Original commit message:
[APFloat] Fixed a bug in method 'fusedMultiplyAdd'.
When folding a fused multiply-add builtin call, make sure that we propagate the
correct result in the case where the addend is zero, and the two other operands
are finite non-zero.
Example:
define double @test() {
%1 = call double @llvm.fma.f64(double 7.0, double 8.0, double 0.0)
ret double %1
}
Before this patch, the instruction simplifier wrongly folded the builtin call
in function @test to constant 'double 7.0'.
With this patch, method 'fusedMultiplyAdd' correctly evaluates the multiply and
propagates the expected result (i.e. 56.0).
Added test fold-builtin-fma.ll with the reproducible from PR20832 plus extra
test cases to verify the behavior of method 'fusedMultiplyAdd' in the presence
of NaN/Inf operands.
This fixes PR20832.
llvm-svn: 219708
consider:
C1 = INT_MIN
C2 = -1
C1 * C2 overflows without a doubt but consider the following:
%x = i32 INT_MIN
This means that (%X /s C1) is 1 and (%X /s C1) /s C2 is -1.
N. B. Move the unsigned version of this transform to InstSimplify, it
doesn't create any new instructions.
This fixes PR21243.
llvm-svn: 219567
Some ICmpInsts when anded/ored with another ICmpInst trivially reduces
to true or false depending on whether or not all integers or no integers
satisfy the intersected/unioned range.
This sort of trivial looking code can come about when InstCombine
performs a range reduction-type operation on sdiv and the like.
This fixes PR20916.
llvm-svn: 217750
When folding a fused multiply-add builtin call, make sure that we propagate the
correct result in the case where the addend is zero, and the two other operands
are finite non-zero.
Example:
define double @test() {
%1 = call double @llvm.fma.f64(double 7.0, double 8.0, double 0.0)
ret double %1
}
Before this patch, the instruction simplifier wrongly folded the builtin call
in function @test to constant 'double 7.0'.
With this patch, method 'fusedMultiplyAdd' correctly evaluates the multiply and
propagates the expected result (i.e. 56.0).
Added test fold-builtin-fma.ll with the reproducible from PR20832 plus extra
test cases to verify the behavior of method 'fusedMultiplyAdd' in the presence
of NaN/Inf operands.
This fixes PR20832.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D5152
llvm-svn: 216913
Several combines involving icmp (shl C2, %X) C1 can be simplified
without introducing any new instructions. Move them to InstSimplify;
while we are at it, make them more powerful.
llvm-svn: 216642
It's incorrect to perform this simplification if the types differ.
A bitcast would need to be inserted for this to work.
This fixes PR20771.
llvm-svn: 216597
'shl nuw CI, x' produces [CI, CI << CLZ(CI)]
'shl nsw CI, x' produces [CI << CLO(CI)-1, CI] if CI is negative
'shl nsw CI, x' produces [CI, CI << CLZ(CI)-1] if CI is non-negative
llvm-svn: 216570
consider:
long long *f(long long *b, long long *e) {
return b + (e - b);
}
we would lower this to something like:
define i64* @f(i64* %b, i64* %e) {
%1 = ptrtoint i64* %e to i64
%2 = ptrtoint i64* %b to i64
%3 = sub i64 %1, %2
%4 = ashr exact i64 %3, 3
%5 = getelementptr inbounds i64* %b, i64 %4
ret i64* %5
}
This should fold away to just 'e'.
N.B. This adds m_SpecificInt as a convenient way to match against a
particular 64-bit integer when using LLVM's match interface.
llvm-svn: 216439
Given something like X01XX + X01XX, we know that the result must look
like X1XXX.
Adapted from a patch by Richard Smith, test-case written by me.
llvm-svn: 216250
If the NUW bit is set for 0 - Y, we know that all values for Y other
than 0 would produce a poison value. This allows us to replace (0 - Y)
with 0 in the expression (X - (0 - Y)) which will ultimately leave us
with X.
This partially fixes PR20189.
llvm-svn: 214384
This is the first commit in a series that add an @llvm.assume intrinsic which
can be used to provide the optimizer with a condition it may assume to be true
(when the control flow would hit the intrinsic call). Some basic properties are added here:
- llvm.invariant(true) is dead.
- llvm.invariant(false) is unreachable (this directly corresponds to the
documented behavior of MSVC's __assume(0)), so is llvm.invariant(undef).
The intrinsic is tagged as writing arbitrarily, in order to maintain control
dependencies. BasicAA has been updated, however, to return NoModRef for any
particular location-based query so that we don't unnecessarily block code
motion.
llvm-svn: 213973
This attribute indicates that the parameter or return pointer is
dereferenceable. Practically speaking, loads from such a pointer within the
associated byte range are safe to speculatively execute. Such pointer
parameters are common in source languages (C++ references, for example).
llvm-svn: 213385
Refactor code, no functionality change, test case moved from instcombine to instsimplify.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D4102
llvm-svn: 213231
Determining the bounds of x/ -1 would start off with us dividing it by
INT_MIN. Suffice to say, this would not work very well.
Instead, handle it upfront by checking for -1 and mapping it to the
range: [INT_MIN + 1, INT_MAX. This means that the result of our
division can be any value other than INT_MIN.
llvm-svn: 212981
Summary:
When calculating the upper bound of X / -8589934592, we would perform
the following calculation: Floor[INT_MAX / 8589934592]
However, flooring the result would make us wrongly come to the
conclusion that 1073741824 was not in the set of possible values.
Instead, use the ceiling of the result.
Reviewers: nicholas
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D4502
llvm-svn: 212976
When INT_MIN is the numerator in a sdiv, we would not properly handle
overflow when calculating the bounds of possible values; abs(INT_MIN) is
not a meaningful number.
Instead, check and handle INT_MIN by reasoning that the largest value is
INT_MIN/-2 and the smallest value is INT_MIN.
This fixes PR20199.
llvm-svn: 212307
Summary:
Analyze the range of values produced by ashr/lshr cst, %V when it is
being used in an icmp.
Reviewers: nicholas
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D3774
llvm-svn: 209000
David Majnemer