Commit Graph

925 Commits

Author SHA1 Message Date
Simon Pilgrim ddbb58736a [KnownBits] Rename KnownBits::computeForMul to KnownBits::mul. NFCI.
As promised in D98866
2021-04-06 10:11:41 +01:00
Philip Reames 58ccbd0d08 Comment adjustments for a rename 2021-04-05 21:07:42 -07:00
Philip Reames 13deb6aac7 Exact ashr/lshr don't loose any set bits and are thus trivially invertible
Use that fact to improve isKnownNonEqual.
2021-04-05 19:22:36 -07:00
Philip Reames dc8d864e3a Address minor post commit feedback on 0e59dd 2021-04-05 18:22:17 -07:00
Philip Reames b0e59dd6e1 Extract a helper for figuring out if an operator is invertible [nfc]
For use in an uncoming patch.  Left out the phi case (which could otherwise fit in this framework) as it would cause infinite recursion in said patch.  We can probably also leverage this in instcombine to ensure we keep the two sets of related analysis and transforms in sync.
2021-04-05 12:14:21 -07:00
Simon Pilgrim 4ea5475a3f [KnownBits] Add KnownBits::haveNoCommonBitsSet helper. NFCI.
Include exhaustive test coverage.
2021-04-02 21:44:33 +01:00
Philip Reames 4af4828a6e [ValueTracking] Handle non-zero ashr/lshr recurrences
If we know we don't shift out bits (e.g. exact), all we need to know is that input is non-zero.
2021-03-31 16:48:32 -07:00
Juneyoung Lee df0b97dab0 [ValueTracking] Add with.overflow intrinsics to poison analysis functions
This is a patch teaching ValueTracking that `s/u*.with.overflow` intrinsics do not
create undef/poison and they propagate poison.
I couldn't write a nice example like the one with ctpop; ValueTrackingTest.cpp were simply updated
to check these instead.
This patch helps reducing regression while fixing https://llvm.org/pr49688 .

Reviewed By: nikic

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D99671
2021-04-01 02:41:38 +09:00
Nikita Popov fd7df0cf38 [ValueTracking] Handle shl pair in isKnownNonEqual()
Handle (x << s) != (y << s) where x != y and the shifts are
non-wrapping. Once again, this establishes parity with the
corresponing mul fold that already exists. The shift case is
more powerful because we don't need to guard against multiplies
by zero.
2021-03-26 20:21:05 +01:00
Nikita Popov 9666e89d57 [ValueTracking] Handle shl in isKnownNonEqual()
This handles the pattern X != X << C for non-zero X and C and a
non-overflowing shift. This establishes parity with the corresponing
fold for multiplies.
2021-03-26 20:21:05 +01:00
Nikita Popov caf92a8a92 [ValueTracking] Handle non-zero shl recurrence
In this case we don't care about the step at all, and only require
that the starting value is non-zero.
2021-03-26 18:39:06 +01:00
Nikita Popov 938d05b814 [ValueTracking] Handle non-zero add/mul recurrences more precisely
This is mainly for clarity: It doesn't make sense to do any
negative/positive checks when dealing with a nuw add/mul. These
only make sense to nsw add/mul.
2021-03-26 18:30:07 +01:00
Jingu Kang 3fd64cc7a3 [ValueTracking] Handle two PHIs in isKnownNonEqual()
loop:
  %cmp.0 = phi i32 [ 3, %entry ], [ %inc, %loop ]
  %pos.0 = phi i32 [ 1, %entry ], [ %cmp.0, %loop ]
  ...
  %inc = add i32 %cmp.0, 1
  br label %loop

On above example, %pos.0 uses previous iteration's %cmp.0 with backedge
according to PHI's instruction's defintion. If the %inc is not same among
iterations, we can say the two PHIs are not same.

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D98422
2021-03-25 22:56:05 +00:00
Philip Reames 9a82f42d12 Plumb TLI through isSafeToExecuteUnconditionally [NFC]
Split from D95815 to reduce patch size.  Isn't (yet) used for anything, only the client side is wired up.
2021-03-24 17:52:04 -07:00
Sanjay Patel adf42dff42 [ValueTracking] peek through min/max to find isKnownToBeAPowerOfTwo
This is similar to the select logic just ahead of the new code.
Min/max choose exactly one value from the inputs, so if both of
those are a power-of-2, then the result must be a power-of-2.

This might help with D98152, but we likely still need other
pieces of the puzzle to avoid regressions.

The change in PatternMatch.h is needed to build with clang.
It's possible there is a better way to deal with the 'const'
incompatibities.

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D99276
2021-03-24 17:54:38 -04:00
Jingu Kang 2e2740b859 [ValueTracking] Handle increasing mul recurrence in isKnownNonZero()
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D99069
2021-03-23 23:04:41 +00:00
Craig Topper 4c38c35c8d [ValueTracking] Teach canCreateUndefOrPoison that ctpop does not create undef or poison.
This select of ctpop with 0 pattern can get left behind after
loop idiom recognize converts a loop to ctpop. LLVM 10 was able
to optimize this, but LLVM 11 and later is not. The difference
seems to be that some select transforms are now limited based
on canCreateUndefOrPoison.

Teaching canCreateUndefOrPoison about ctpop restores the
LLVM 10 codegen.

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D99207
2021-03-23 12:42:18 -07:00
Nikita Popov d11d5d1c5f [ValueTracking] Improve mul handling in isKnownNonEqual()
X != X * C is true if:
 * C is not 0 or 1
 * X is not 0
 * mul is nsw or nuw

Proof: https://alive2.llvm.org/ce/z/uwF29z

This is motivated by one of the cases in D98422.
2021-03-21 18:41:35 +01:00
Nikita Popov 5fb43477dc Revert "[NFCI][ValueTracking] getUnderlyingObject(): gracefully handle cycles"
This reverts commit aa440ba24d.

This has a non-trivial compile-time impact:
https://llvm-compile-time-tracker.com/compare.php?from=0c5b789c7342ee8384507c3242fc256e23248c4d&to=aa440ba24dc25e4c95f6dcf8ff647024f3b12661&stat=instructions

I don't believe this is the correct way to address the issue in
this case.
2021-03-15 13:12:39 +01:00
Roman Lebedev aa440ba24d
[NFCI][ValueTracking] getUnderlyingObject(): gracefully handle cycles
Normally, this function just doesn't bother about cycles,
and hopes that the caller supplied small-enough depth
so that at worst it will take a potentially large,
but limited amount of time. But that obviously doesn't work
if there is no depth limit.

This reapples 36f1c3db66,
but without asserting, just bailout once cycle is detected.
2021-03-15 13:51:02 +03:00
Roman Lebedev f247d2ab9a
Revert "[NFCI][ValueTracking] getUnderlyingObject(): assert that no cycles are encountered"
This reverts commit 36f1c3db66.
Seems to make bots unhappy.
2021-03-15 12:00:59 +03:00
Roman Lebedev 36f1c3db66
[NFCI][ValueTracking] getUnderlyingObject(): assert that no cycles are encountered
Jeroen Dobbelaere in
https://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2021-March/149206.html
is reporting that this function can end up in an endless loop
when called from SROA w/ full restrict patches.

For now, simply ensure that such problems are caught earlier/easier.
2021-03-15 11:52:31 +03:00
Benjamin Kramer 0d96ea0792 [ValueTracking] Move matchSimpleRecurrence out of line
The header only has a forward declaration of PHINode available, and this
function doesn't seem to get much out of inlining.
2021-03-09 00:04:47 +01:00
Sanjay Patel 34d0d644ff [ValueTracking] move/add helper to get inverse min/max; NFC
We will need to this functionality to improve min/max folds
in instcombine when we canonicalize to intrinsics.
2021-03-08 17:38:22 -05:00
Philip Reames d9a29a6752 constify getUnderlyingObject implementation [nfc] 2021-03-08 11:32:54 -08:00
Juneyoung Lee 2c16c4a43c [ValueTracking] update directlyImpliesPoison to look into select's condition
This is a minor update in directlyImpliesPoison and makes it look into select's
condition.
Splitted from https://reviews.llvm.org/D96945
2021-03-07 23:16:44 +09:00
Philip Reames f2cfef3596 Be more mathematicly precise about definition of recurrence [NFC]
This clarifies the interface of the matchSimpleRecurrence helper introduced in 8020be0b8 for non-commutative operators.  After ebd3aeba, I realized the original way I framed the routine was inconsistent.  For shifts, we only matched the the LHS form, but for sub we matched both and the caller wanted that information.  So, instead, we now consistently match both forms for non-commutative operators and the caller becomes responsible for filtering if needed.  I tried to put a clear warning in the header because I suspect the RHS form of e.g. a sub recurrence is non-obvious for most folks.  (It was for me.)
2021-02-26 11:22:01 -08:00
Philip Reames ebd3aeba27 Use helper introduced in 8020be0b8 to simplify ValueTracking [NFC]
Direct rewrite of the code the helper was extracted from.
2021-02-26 10:47:26 -08:00
Philip Reames 8020be0b8b Add a helper for matching simple recurrence cycles
This helper came up in another review, and I've got about 4 different patches with copies of this copied into it.  Time to precommit the routine.  :)
2021-02-26 10:21:23 -08:00
Simon Pilgrim 96a3dfeb93 Revert rGd65ddca83ff85c7345fe9a0f5a15750f01e38420 - "[ValueTracking] ComputeKnownBits - minimum leading/trailing zero bits in LSHR/SHL (PR44526)"
This is causing sanitizer test failures that I haven't been able to fix yet.
2021-02-24 18:03:17 +00:00
Nico Weber 3d837ad704 Revert "[ValueTracking] computeKnownBitsFromShiftOperator - remove non-zero shift amount handling."
This reverts commit d37400168c.
Breaks Analysis/./AnalysisTests/ComputeKnownBitsTest.KnownNonZeroShift
2021-02-24 09:06:12 -05:00
Simon Pilgrim d37400168c [ValueTracking] computeKnownBitsFromShiftOperator - remove non-zero shift amount handling.
This no longer affects any tests after the improvements to the KnownBits shift helpers.
2021-02-24 13:49:13 +00:00
Simon Pilgrim d65ddca83f [ValueTracking] ComputeKnownBits - minimum leading/trailing zero bits in LSHR/SHL (PR44526)
Followup to D72573 - as detailed in https://blog.regehr.org/archives/1709 we don't make use of the known leading/trailing zeros for shifted values in cases where we don't know the shift amount value.

Stop ValueTracking returning zero for poison shift patterns and use the KnownBits shift helpers directly.

Extend KnownBits::shl to combine all possible shifted combinations if both min/max shift amount values are in range.

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D90479
2021-02-24 12:15:45 +00:00
Craig Topper 89440df64a [ValueTracking] Improve ComputeNumSignBits for SRem.
The result will have the same sign as the dividend unless the
result is 0. The magnitude of the result will always be less
than or equal to the dividend. So the result will have at least
as many sign bits as the dividend.

Previously we would do this if the divisor was a positive constant,
but that isn't required.

Reviewed By: RKSimon

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D97170
2021-02-22 14:36:25 -08:00
Juneyoung Lee aacf7878bc [ValueTracking] Improve impliesPoison
This patch improves ValueTracking's impliesPoison(V1, V2) to do this reasoning:

```
  %res = call { i64, i1 } @llvm.umul.with.overflow.i64(i64 %a, i64 %b)
  %overflow = extractvalue { i64, i1 } %res, 1
  %mul      = extractvalue { i64, i1 } %res, 0

	; If %mul is poison, %overflow is also poison, and vice versa.
```

This improvement leads to supporting this optimization under `-instcombine-unsafe-select-transform=0`:

```
define i1 @test2_logical(i64 %a, i64 %b, i64* %ptr) {
; CHECK-LABEL: @test2_logical(
; CHECK-NEXT:    [[MUL:%.*]] = mul i64 [[A:%.*]], [[B:%.*]]
; CHECK-NEXT:    [[TMP1:%.*]] = icmp ne i64 [[A]], 0
; CHECK-NEXT:    [[TMP2:%.*]] = icmp ne i64 [[B]], 0
; CHECK-NEXT:    [[OVERFLOW_1:%.*]] = and i1 [[TMP1]], [[TMP2]]
; CHECK-NEXT:    [[NEG:%.*]] = sub i64 0, [[MUL]]
; CHECK-NEXT:    store i64 [[NEG]], i64* [[PTR:%.*]], align 8
; CHECK-NEXT:    ret i1 [[OVERFLOW_1]]
;

  %res = tail call { i64, i1 } @llvm.umul.with.overflow.i64(i64 %a, i64 %b)
  %overflow = extractvalue { i64, i1 } %res, 1
  %mul = extractvalue { i64, i1 } %res, 0
  %cmp = icmp ne i64 %mul, 0
  %overflow.1 = select i1 %overflow, i1 true, i1 %cmp
  %neg = sub i64 0, %mul
  store i64 %neg, i64* %ptr, align 8
  ret i1 %overflow.1
}
```

Previously, this didn't happen because the flag prevented `select i1 %overflow, i1 true, i1 %cmp` from being `or i1 %overflow, %cmp`.
Note that the select -> or conversion happens only when `impliesPoison(%cmp, %overflow)` returns true.
This improvement allows `impliesPoison` to do the reasoning.

Reviewed By: nikic

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D96929
2021-02-20 13:22:34 +09:00
Philip Reames b13e942224 [ValueTracking] Add a two argument form of safeCtxI [NFC]
The existing implementation was relying on order of evaluation to achieve a particular result.  This got really confusing when wanting to change the handling for arguments in a later patch.
2021-02-19 14:52:51 -08:00
Nikita Popov 370addb996 [IR] Move willReturn() to Instruction
This moves the willReturn() helper from CallBase to Instruction,
so that it can be used in a more generic manner. This will make
it easier to fix additional passes (ADCE and BDCE), and will give
us one place to change if additional instructions should become
non-willreturn (e.g. there has been talk about handling volatile
operations this way).

I have also included the IntrinsicInst workaround directly in
here, so that it gets applied consistently. (As such this change
is not entirely NFC -- FuncAttrs will now use this as well.)

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D96992
2021-02-19 11:56:01 +01:00
Sanjay Patel 378941f611 [ValueTracking] add scan limit for assumes
In the motivating example from https://llvm.org/PR49171 and
reduced test here, we would unroll and clone assumes so much
that compile-time effectively became infinite while analyzing
all of those assumes.
2021-02-15 15:24:20 -05:00
aqjune 5f3c99085d [ValueTracking] Dereferenced pointers are noundef
This is a follow-up of D95238's LangRef update.
This patch updates `programUndefinedIfUndefOrPoison(V)` to return true if
`V` is used by any memory-accessing instruction.
Interestingly, this affected many tests in Attributors, mainly about adding noundefs.
The tests are updated using llvm/utils/update_test_checks.py. I checked that the diffs
are about updating noundefs.

Reviewed By: nikic

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D96642
2021-02-14 22:50:48 +09:00
Philip Reames 8ef4b961a3 [knownbits] Preserve known bits for small shift recurrences
The motivation for this is that I'm looking at an example that uses shifts as induction variables. There's lots of other omissions, but one of the first I noticed is that we can't compute tight known bits. (This indirectly causes SCEV's range analysis to produce very poor results as well.)

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D96440
2021-02-11 17:56:36 -08:00
Stanislav Mekhanoshin 8151c1b442 Move implementation of isAssumeLikeIntrinsic into IntrinsicInst
This is remove dependency on ValueTracking in the future patch.

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D96079
2021-02-11 11:41:34 -08:00
Sanjay Patel 0be0a1237c [ValueTracking] improve analysis for "C << X" and "C >> X"
This is based on the example/comments in:
https://llvm.org/PR48984

I tried just lifting the restriction in computeKnownBitsFromShiftOperator()
as suggested in the bug report, but that doesn't catch all of the cases
shown here. I didn't step through to see exactly why that happened. But it
seems like a reasonable compromise to cheaply check the special-case of
shifting a constant.

There's a slight regression on a cmp transform as noted, but this is likely
the more important/common pattern, so we can fix that icmp pattern later if
needed.

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D95959
2021-02-09 12:38:06 -05:00
Kazu Hirata 28d3132089 [Analysis] Use range-based for loops (NFC) 2021-02-06 11:17:10 -08:00
Nikita Popov 5d12b976b0 [ValueTracking] Don't assume readonly function will return
This is similar to D94106, but for the
isGuaranteedToTransferExecutionToSuccessor() helper. We should not
assume that readonly functions will return, as this is only true for
mustprogress functions (in which case we already infer willreturn).
As with the DCE change, for now continue assuming that readonly
intrinsics will return, as not all target intrinsics have been
annotated yet.

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D95288
2021-01-24 10:40:21 +01:00
Kazu Hirata a3254904b2 [Analysis] Use llvm::append_range (NFC) 2021-01-22 23:25:01 -08:00
Juneyoung Lee 4479c0c2c0 Allow nonnull/align attribute to accept poison
Currently LLVM is relying on ValueTracking's `isKnownNonZero` to attach `nonnull`, which can return true when the value is poison.
To make the semantics of `nonnull` consistent with the behavior of `isKnownNonZero`, this makes the semantics of `nonnull` to accept poison, and return poison if the input pointer isn't null.
This makes many transformations like below legal:

```
%p = gep inbounds %x, 1 ; % p is non-null pointer or poison
call void @f(%p)        ; instcombine converts this to call void @f(nonnull %p)
```

Instead, this semantics makes propagation of `nonnull` to caller illegal.
The reason is that, passing poison to `nonnull` does not immediately raise UB anymore, so such program is still well defined, if the callee does not use the argument.
Having `noundef` attribute there re-allows this.

```
define void @f(i8* %p) {       ; functionattr cannot mark %p nonnull here anymore
  call void @g(i8* nonnull %p) ; .. because @g never raises UB if it never uses %p.
  ret void
}
```

Another attribute that needs to be updated is `align`. This patch updates the semantics of align to accept poison as well.

Reviewed By: jdoerfert

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D90529
2021-01-20 11:31:23 +09:00
Jeroen Dobbelaere 121cac01e8 [noalias.decl] Look through llvm.experimental.noalias.scope.decl
Just like llvm.assume, there are a lot of cases where we can just ignore llvm.experimental.noalias.scope.decl.

Reviewed By: nikic

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D93042
2021-01-19 20:09:42 +01:00
Nikita Popov 051ec9f5f4 [ValueTracking] Strengthen impliesPoison reasoning
Split impliesPoison into two recursive walks, one over V, the
other over ValAssumedPoison. This allows us to reason about poison
implications in a number of additional cases that are important
in practice. This is a generalized form of D94859, which handles
the cmp to cmp implication in particular.

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D94866
2021-01-19 18:04:23 +01:00
Nikita Popov 4229b87ed3 [ValueTracking] Fix isSafeToSpeculativelyExecute for sdiv (PR48778)
The != -1 check does not work correctly for all bitwidths. Use
isAllOnesValue() instead.
2021-01-17 20:06:17 +01:00
Jay Foad 517196e569 [Analysis,CodeGen] Make use of KnownBits::makeConstant. NFC.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D94588
2021-01-14 14:02:43 +00:00