Prefer add/zext because they are better supported in terms of value-tracking.
Note that the backend should be prepared for this IR canonicalization
(including vector types) after:
https://reviews.llvm.org/rL284015
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D25135
llvm-svn: 284241
The pattern may look more obviously like a sext if written as:
define i32 @g(i16 %x) {
%zext = zext i16 %x to i32
%xor = xor i32 %zext, 32768
%add = add i32 %xor, -32768
ret i32 %add
}
We already have that fold in visitAdd().
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D22477
llvm-svn: 276035
The patch is generated using this command:
tools/clang/tools/extra/clang-tidy/tool/run-clang-tidy.py -fix \
-checks=-*,llvm-namespace-comment -header-filter='llvm/.*|clang/.*' \
llvm/lib/
Thanks to Eugene Kosov for the original patch!
llvm-svn: 240137
Summary:
Extract method haveNoCommonBitsSet so that we don't have to duplicate this logic in
InstCombine and SeparateConstOffsetFromGEP.
This patch also makes SeparateConstOffsetFromGEP more precise by passing
DominatorTree to computeKnownBits.
Test Plan: value-tracking-domtree.ll that tests ValueTracking indeed leverages dominating conditions
Reviewers: broune, meheff, majnemer
Reviewed By: majnemer
Subscribers: jholewinski, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D9734
llvm-svn: 237407
The rule that turns a sub to xor if the LHS is 2^n-1 and the remaining bits
are known zero, does not use the demanded bits at all: Move it to the
normal InstCombine code path.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D9417
llvm-svn: 236268
Summary:
Now that the DataLayout is a mandatory part of the module, let's start
cleaning the codebase. This patch is a first attempt at doing that.
This patch is not exactly NFC as for instance some places were passing
a nullptr instead of the DataLayout, possibly just because there was a
default value on the DataLayout argument to many functions in the API.
Even though it is not purely NFC, there is no change in the
validation.
I turned as many pointer to DataLayout to references, this helped
figuring out all the places where a nullptr could come up.
I had initially a local version of this patch broken into over 30
independant, commits but some later commit were cleaning the API and
touching part of the code modified in the previous commits, so it
seemed cleaner without the intermediate state.
Test Plan:
Reviewers: echristo
Subscribers: llvm-commits
From: Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini@apple.com>
llvm-svn: 231740
creating a non-internal header file for the InstCombine pass.
I thought about calling this InstCombiner.h or in some way more clearly
associating it with the InstCombiner clas that it is primarily defining,
but there are several other utility interfaces defined within this for
InstCombine. If, in the course of refactoring, those end up moving
elsewhere or going away, it might make more sense to make this the
combiner's header alone.
Naturally, this is a bikeshed to a certain degree, so feel free to lobby
for a different shade of paint if this name just doesn't suit you.
llvm-svn: 226783
WillNotOverflowUnsignedAdd's smarts will live in ValueTracking as
computeOverflowForUnsignedAdd. It now returns a tri-state result:
never overflows, always overflows and sometimes overflows.
llvm-svn: 225329
a cache of assumptions for a single function, and an immutable pass that
manages those caches.
The motivation for this change is two fold. Immutable analyses are
really hacks around the current pass manager design and don't exist in
the new design. This is usually OK, but it requires that the core logic
of an immutable pass be reasonably partitioned off from the pass logic.
This change does precisely that. As a consequence it also paves the way
for the *many* utility functions that deal in the assumptions to live in
both pass manager worlds by creating an separate non-pass object with
its own independent API that they all rely on. Now, the only bits of the
system that deal with the actual pass mechanics are those that actually
need to deal with the pass mechanics.
Once this separation is made, several simplifications become pretty
obvious in the assumption cache itself. Rather than using a set and
callback value handles, it can just be a vector of weak value handles.
The callers can easily skip the handles that are null, and eventually we
can wrap all of this up behind a filter iterator.
For now, this adds boiler plate to the various passes, but this kind of
boiler plate will end up making it possible to port these passes to the
new pass manager, and so it will end up factored away pretty reasonably.
llvm-svn: 225131
Backends recognize (-0.0 - X) as the canonical form for fneg
and produce better code. Eg, ppc64 with 0.0:
lis r2, ha16(LCPI0_0)
lfs f0, lo16(LCPI0_0)(r2)
fsubs f1, f0, f1
blr
vs. -0.0:
fneg f1, f1
blr
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D6723
llvm-svn: 224583
Some intrinsics, like s/uadd.with.overflow and umul.with.overflow, are already strength reduced.
This change adds other arithmetic intrinsics: s/usub.with.overflow, smul.with.overflow.
It completes the work on PR20194.
llvm-svn: 224417
The following implements the transformation:
(sub (or A B) (xor A B)) --> (and A B).
Patch by Ankur Garg!
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D5719
llvm-svn: 220163
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
We can prove that a 'sub' can be a 'sub nsw' under certain conditions:
- The sign bits of the operands is the same.
- Both operands have more than 1 sign bit.
The subtraction cannot be a signed overflow in either case.
llvm-svn: 216037
While *most* (X sdiv 1) operations will get caught by InstSimplify, it
is still possible for a sdiv to appear in the worklist which hasn't been
simplified yet.
This means that it is possible for 0 - (X sdiv 1) to get transformed
into (X sdiv -1); dividing by -1 can make the transform produce undef
values instead of the proper result.
Sorry for the lack of testcase, it's a bit problematic because it relies
on the exact order of operations in the worklist.
llvm-svn: 215818
What follows bellow is a correctness proof of the transform using CVC3.
$ < t.cvc
A, B : BITVECTOR(32);
QUERY BVPLUS(32, A & B, A | B) = BVPLUS(32, A, B);
$ cvc3 < t.cvc
Valid.
llvm-svn: 215400
We can only propagate the nsw bits if both subtraction instructions are
marked with the appropriate bit.
N.B. We only propagate the nsw bit in InstCombine because the nuw case
is already handled in InstSimplify.
This fixes PR20189.
llvm-svn: 214385
This patch enables transforms for
(x + (~(y | c) + 1) --> x - (y | c) if c is odd
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D4210
llvm-svn: 211881
This patch enables transforms for
(x + (~(y | c) + 1) --> x - (y | c) if c is even
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D4209
llvm-svn: 211765
This patch enables transforms for following patterns.
(x + (~(y & c) + 1) --> x - (y & c)
(x + (~((y >> z) & c) + 1) --> x - ((y>>z) & c)
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D3733
llvm-svn: 211266
* Find factorization opportunities using identity values.
* Find factorization opportunities by treating shl(X, C) as mul (X, shl(C))
* Keep NSW flag while simplifying instruction using factorization.
This fixes PR19263.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D3799
llvm-svn: 211261
Summary:
As a starting step, we only use one simple heuristic: if the sign bits
of both a and b are zero, we can prove "add a, b" do not unsigned
overflow, and thus convert it to "add nuw a, b".
Updated all affected tests and added two new tests (@zero_sign_bit and
@zero_sign_bit2) in AddOverflow.ll
Test Plan: make check-all
Reviewers: eliben, rafael, meheff, chandlerc
Reviewed By: chandlerc
Subscribers: chandlerc, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D4144
llvm-svn: 211084
This patch implements two things:
1. If we know one number is positive and another is negative, we return true as
signed addition of two opposite signed numbers will never overflow.
2. Implemented TODO : If one of the operands only has one non-zero bit, and if
the other operand has a known-zero bit in a more significant place than it
(not including the sign bit) the ripple may go up to and fill the zero, but
won't change the sign. e.x - (x & ~4) + 1
We make sure that we are ignoring 0 at MSB.
Patch by Suyog Sarda.
llvm-svn: 210186
The code was actually correct. Sorry for the confusion. I have expanded the
comment saying why the analysis is valid to avoid me misunderstaning it
again in the future.
llvm-svn: 210052
Sanjay Patel