InstCombine operates on the basic premise that the operands of the
currently processed instruction have already been simplified. It
achieves this by pushing instructions to the worklist in reverse
program order, so that instructions are popped off in program order.
The worklist management in the main combining loop also makes sure
to uphold this invariant.
However, the same is not true for all the code that is performing
manual worklist management. The largest problem (addressed in this
patch) are instructions inserted by InstCombine's IRBuilder. These
will be pushed onto the worklist in order of insertion (generally
matching program order), which means that a) the users of the
original instruction will be visited first, as they are pushed later
in the main loop and b) the newly inserted instructions will be
visited in reverse program order.
This causes a number of problems: First, folds operate on instructions
that have not had their operands simplified, which may result in
optimizations being missed (ran into this in
https://reviews.llvm.org/D72048#1800424, which was the original
motivation for this patch). Additionally, this increases the amount
of folds InstCombine has to perform, both within one iteration, and
by increasing the number of total iterations.
This patch addresses the issue by adding a Worklist.AddDeferred()
method, which is used for instructions inserted by IRBuilder. These
will only be added to the real worklist after the combine finished,
and in reverse order, so they will end up processed in program order.
I should note that the same should also be done to nearly all other
uses of Worklist.Add(), but I'm starting with just this occurrence,
which has by far the largest test fallout.
Most of the test changes are due to
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=44521 or other cases where
we don't canonicalize something. These are neutral. One regression
has been addressed in D73575 and D73647. The remaining regression
in an shl+sdiv fold can't really be fixed without dropping another
transform, but does not seem particularly problematic in the first
place.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D73411
As it's causing some bot failures (and per request from kbarton).
This reverts commit r358543/ab70da07286e618016e78247e4a24fcb84077fda.
llvm-svn: 358546
Similar to:
rL358005
Forego folding arbitrary vector constants to fix a possible miscompile bug.
We can enhance the transform if we do want to handle the more complicated
vector case.
llvm-svn: 358013
// 0 - (X sdiv C) -> (X sdiv -C) provided the negation doesn't overflow.
This fold has been around for many years and nobody noticed the potential
vector miscompile from overflow until recently...
So it seems unlikely that there's much demand for a vector sdiv optimization
on arbitrary vector constants, so just limit the matching to splat constants
to avoid the possible bug.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D60426
llvm-svn: 358005
This fold is mentioned in PR38239:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=38239
The general case probably belongs in -reassociate, but given that we do
basic reassociation optimizations similar to this in instcombine already,
we might as well be consistent within instcombine and handle this pattern?
llvm-svn: 338038
Note: I didn't add a hasOneUse() check because the existing,
related fold doesn't have that check. I suspect that the
improved analysis and codegen make these some of the rare
canonicalization cases where we allow an increase in
instructions.
llvm-svn: 335597
The related cases for (X * Y) / X were handled in rL124487.
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/6k9
The division in these tests is subsequently eliminated by existing instcombines
for 1/X.
llvm-svn: 324843
We were using an i1 type and then zero extending to a vector. Instead just create the 0/1 directly as a ConstantInt with the correct type. No need to ask ConstantExpr to zero extend for us.
This bug is a bit tricky to hit because it requires us to visit a zext of an icmp that would normally be simplified to true/false, but that icmp hasnt' been visited yet. In the test case this zext and icmp were created by visiting a udiv and due to worklist ordering we got to the zext first.
Fixes PR34841.
llvm-svn: 314971
This should bring signed div/rem analysis up to the same level as unsigned.
We use icmp simplification to determine when the divisor is known greater than the dividend.
Each positive test is followed by a negative test to show that we're not overstepping the boundaries of the known bits.
There are extra tests for the signed-min-value special cases.
Alive proofs:
http://rise4fun.com/Alive/WI5
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D37713
llvm-svn: 313264
We could try harder to handle non-splat vector constants too,
but that seems much rarer to me.
Note that the div test isn't resolved because there's a check
for isIntegerTy() guarding that transform.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D20497
llvm-svn: 270369
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
Trivial multiplication by zero may survive the worklist. We tried to
reassociate the multiplication with a division instruction, causing us
to divide by zero; bail out instead.
This fixes PR24726.
llvm-svn: 246939
I looked into adding a warning / error for this to FileCheck, but there doesn't
seem to be a good way to avoid it triggering on the instances of it in RUN lines.
llvm-svn: 244481
We assumed that A must be greater than B because the right hand side of
a remainder operator must be nonzero.
However, it is possible for A to be less than B if Pow2 is a power of
two greater than 1.
Take for example:
i32 %A = 0
i32 %B = 31
i32 Pow2 = 2147483648
((Pow2 << 0) >>u 31) is non-zero but A is less than B.
This fixes PR21274.
llvm-svn: 219713
We have a transform that changes:
(x lshr C1) udiv C2
into:
x udiv (C2 << C1)
However, it is unsafe to do so if C2 << C1 discards any of C2's bits.
This fixes PR21255.
llvm-svn: 219634
Consider the case where X is 2. (2 <<s 31)/s-2147483648 is zero but we
would fold to X. Note that this is valid when we are in the unsigned
domain because we require NUW: 2 <<u 31 results in poison.
This fixes PR21245.
llvm-svn: 219568
consider:
mul i32 nsw %x, -2147483648
this instruction will not result in poison if %x is 1
however, if we transform this into:
shl i32 nsw %x, 31
then we will be generating poison because we just shifted into the sign
bit.
This fixes PR21242.
llvm-svn: 219566
We can combne a mul with a div if one of the operands is a multiple of
the other:
%mul = mul nsw nuw %a, C1
%ret = udiv %mul, C2
=>
%ret = mul nsw %a, (C1 / C2)
This can expose further optimization opportunities if we end up
multiplying or dividing by a power of 2.
Consider this small example:
define i32 @f(i32 %a) {
%mul = mul nuw i32 %a, 14
%div = udiv exact i32 %mul, 7
ret i32 %div
}
which gets CodeGen'd to:
imull $14, %edi, %eax
imulq $613566757, %rax, %rcx
shrq $32, %rcx
subl %ecx, %eax
shrl %eax
addl %ecx, %eax
shrl $2, %eax
retq
We can now transform this into:
define i32 @f(i32 %a) {
%shl = shl nuw i32 %a, 1
ret i32 %shl
}
which gets CodeGen'd to:
leal (%rdi,%rdi), %eax
retq
This fixes PR20681.
llvm-svn: 215815
Nikita Popov