Yes, if operands are non-positive this comes at the extra cost
of two extra negations. But a. division is already just
ridiculously costly, two more subtractions can't hurt much :)
and b. we have better/more analyzes/folds for an unsigned division,
we could end up narrowing it's bitwidth, converting it to lshr, etc.
This is essentially a take two on 0fdcca07ad,
which didn't fix the potential regression i was seeing,
because ValueTracking's computeKnownBits() doesn't make use
of dominating conditions in it's analysis.
While i could teach it that, this seems like the more general fix.
This big hammer actually does catch said potential regression.
Over vanilla test-suite + RawSpeed + darktable
(10M IR instrs, 1M IR BB, 1M X86 ASM instrs), this fires/converts 5 more
(+2%) SDiv's, the total instruction count at the end of middle-end pipeline
is only +6, so out of +10 extra negations, ~half are folded away,
and asm instr count is only +1, so practically speaking all extra
negations are folded away and are therefore free.
Sadly, all these new UDiv's remained, none folded away.
But there are two less basic blocks.
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/VS6
Name: v0
Pre: C0 >= 0 && C1 >= 0
%r = sdiv i8 C0, C1
=>
%r = udiv i8 C0, C1
Name: v1
Pre: C0 <= 0 && C1 >= 0
%r = sdiv i8 C0, C1
=>
%t0 = udiv i8 -C0, C1
%r = sub i8 0, %t0
Name: v2
Pre: C0 >= 0 && C1 <= 0
%r = sdiv i8 C0, C1
=>
%t0 = udiv i8 C0, -C1
%r = sub i8 0, %t0
Name: v3
Pre: C0 <= 0 && C1 <= 0
%r = sdiv i8 C0, C1
=>
%r = udiv i8 -C0, -C1
Currently that fold requires both operands to be non-negative,
but the only real requirement for the fold is that we must know
the domains of the operands.
InstCombine may convert conditions like (x < C) && (y < C) into
(x | y) < C (for some C). This patch teaches LVI to recognize that
in this case, it can infer either x < C or y < C along the edge.
This fixes the issue reported at
https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/73827.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D82715
This is D77454, except for stores. All the infrastructure work was done
for loads, so the remaining changes necessary are relatively small.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D79968
The "null-pointer-is-valid" attribute needs to be checked by many
pointer-related combines. To make the check more efficient, convert
it from a string into an enum attribute.
In the future, this attribute may be replaced with data layout
properties.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D78862
For IR generated by a compiler, this is really simple: you just take the
datalayout from the beginning of the file, and apply it to all the IR
later in the file. For optimization testcases that don't care about the
datalayout, this is also really simple: we just use the default
datalayout.
The complexity here comes from the fact that some LLVM tools allow
overriding the datalayout: some tools have an explicit flag for this,
some tools will infer a datalayout based on the code generation target.
Supporting this properly required plumbing through a bunch of new
machinery: we want to allow overriding the datalayout after the
datalayout is parsed from the file, but before we use any information
from it. Therefore, IR/bitcode parsing now has a callback to allow tools
to compute the datalayout at the appropriate time.
Not sure if I covered all the LLVM tools that want to use the callback.
(clang? lli? Misc IR manipulation tools like llvm-link?). But this is at
least enough for all the LLVM regression tests, and IR without a
datalayout is not something frontends should generate.
This change had some sort of weird effects for certain CodeGen
regression tests: if the datalayout is overridden with a datalayout with
a different program or stack address space, we now parse IR based on the
overridden datalayout, instead of the one written in the file (or the
default one, if none is specified). This broke a few AVR tests, and one
AMDGPU test.
Outside the CodeGen tests I mentioned, the test changes are all just
fixing CHECK lines and moving around datalayout lines in weird places.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D78403
Currently an unknown/undef value is marked as overdefined when merged
with an empty range. An empty range can occur in unreachable/dead code.
When merging the new unknown state (= no value known yet) with an empty
range, there still isn't any information about the value yet and we can
stay in unknown.
This gives a few nice improvements on the number of instructions removed
by IPSCCP:
Same hash: 170 (filtered out)
Remaining: 67
Metric: sccp.IPNumInstRemoved
Program base patch diff
test-suite...rks/FreeBench/mason/mason.test 3.00 6.00 100.0%
test-suite...nchmarks/McCat/18-imp/imp.test 3.00 5.00 66.7%
test-suite...C/CFP2000/179.art/179.art.test 2.00 3.00 50.0%
test-suite...ijndael/security-rijndael.test 2.00 3.00 50.0%
test-suite...ks/Prolangs-C/agrep/agrep.test 40.00 58.00 45.0%
test-suite...ce/Applications/Burg/burg.test 26.00 37.00 42.3%
test-suite...cCat/03-testtrie/testtrie.test 3.00 4.00 33.3%
test-suite...Source/Benchmarks/sim/sim.test 29.00 36.00 24.1%
test-suite.../Applications/spiff/spiff.test 9.00 11.00 22.2%
test-suite...s/FreeBench/neural/neural.test 5.00 6.00 20.0%
test-suite...pplications/treecc/treecc.test 66.00 79.00 19.7%
test-suite...langs-C/football/football.test 85.00 101.00 18.8%
test-suite...ce/Benchmarks/PAQ8p/paq8p.test 90.00 105.00 16.7%
test-suite...oxyApps-C++/miniFE/miniFE.test 37.00 43.00 16.2%
test-suite...rks/FreeBench/pifft/pifft.test 26.00 30.00 15.4%
test-suite...lications/sqlite3/sqlite3.test 481.00 548.00 13.9%
test-suite...marks/7zip/7zip-benchmark.test 4875.00 5522.00 13.3%
test-suite.../CINT2000/176.gcc/176.gcc.test 1117.00 1197.00 7.2%
test-suite...0.perlbench/400.perlbench.test 1618.00 1732.00 7.0%
Reviewers: efriedma, nikic, davide
Reviewed By: efriedma
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D78667
Currently ConstantRange::binaryAnd/binaryOr results are too pessimistic
for single element constant ranges.
If both operands are single element ranges, we can use APInt's AND and
OR implementations directly.
Note that some other binary operations on constant ranges can cover the
single element cases naturally, but for OR and AND this unfortunately is
not the case.
Reviewers: nikic, spatel, lebedev.ri
Reviewed By: spatel
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D76446
This patch updates ValueLattice to distinguish between ranges that are
guaranteed to not include undef and ranges that may include undef.
A constant range guaranteed to not contain undef can be used to simplify
instructions to arbitrary values. A constant range that may contain
undef can only be used to simplify to a constant. If the value can be
undef, it might take a value outside the range. For example, consider
the snipped below
define i32 @f(i32 %a, i1 %c) {
br i1 %c, label %true, label %false
true:
%a.255 = and i32 %a, 255
br label %exit
false:
br label %exit
exit:
%p = phi i32 [ %a.255, %true ], [ undef, %false ]
%f.1 = icmp eq i32 %p, 300
call void @use(i1 %f.1)
%res = and i32 %p, 255
ret i32 %res
}
In the exit block, %p would be a constant range [0, 256) including undef as
%p could be undef. We can use the range information to replace %f.1 with
false because we remove the compare, effectively forcing the use of the
constant to be != 300. We cannot replace %res with %p however, because
if %a would be undef %cond may be true but the second use might not be
< 256.
Currently LazyValueInfo uses the new behavior just when simplifying AND
instructions and does not distinguish between constant ranges with and
without undef otherwise. I think we should address the remaining issues
in LVI incrementally.
Reviewers: efriedma, reames, aqjune, jdoerfert, sstefan1
Reviewed By: efriedma
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D76931
This patch adds a new singlecrfromundef lattice value, indicating a
single element constant range which was merge with undef at some point.
Merging it with another constant range results in overdefined, as we
won't be able to replace all users with a single value.
This patch uses a ConstantRange instead of a Constant*, because regular
integer constants are represented as single element constant ranges as
well and this allows the existing code working without additional
changes.
Reviewers: efriedma, nikic, reames, davide
Reviewed By: efriedma
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D75845
This patch adds a new undef lattice state, which is used to represent
UndefValue constants or instructions producing undef.
The main difference to the unknown state is that merging undef values
with constants (or single element constant ranges) produces the
constant/constant range, assuming all uses of the merge result will be
replaced by the found constant.
Contrary, merging non-single element ranges with undef needs to go to
overdefined. Using unknown for UndefValues currently causes mis-compiles
in CVP/LVI (PR44949) and will become problematic once we use
ValueLatticeElement for SCCP.
Reviewers: efriedma, reames, davide, nikic
Reviewed By: efriedma
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D75120
CVP currently does not simplify cmps with instructions in the same
block, because LVI getPredicateAt() currently does not provide
much useful information for that case (D69686 would change that,
but is stuck.) However, if the instruction is a Phi node, then
LVI can compute the result of the predicate by threading it into
the predecessor blocks, which allows it simplify some conditions
that nothing else can handle. Relevant code:
6d6a4590c5/llvm/lib/Analysis/LazyValueInfo.cpp (L1904-L1927)
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D72169
This phi simplification transform was added with:
D45448
However as shown in PR43802:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=43802
...we must be careful not to propagate poison when we do the substitution.
There might be some more complicated analysis possible to retain the overflow flag,
but it should always be safe and easy to drop flags (we have similar behavior in
instcombine and other passes).
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D69442
Summary:
CVP, unlike InstCombine, does not run till exaustion.
It only does a single pass.
When dealing with those special binops, if we prove that they can
safely be demoted into their usual binop form,
we do set the no-wrap we deduced. But when dealing with usual binops,
we try to deduce both no-wraps.
So if we convert e.g. @llvm.uadd.with.overflow() to `add nuw`,
we won't attempt to check whether it can be `add nuw nsw`.
This patch proposes to call `processBinOp()` on newly-created binop,
which is identical to what we do for div/rem already.
Reviewers: nikic, spatel, reames
Reviewed By: nikic
Subscribers: hiraditya, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D69183
llvm-svn: 375273
This is really a known bits style transformation, but known bits isn't context sensitive. The particular case which comes up happens to involve a range which allows range based reasoning to eliminate the mask pattern, so handle that case specifically in CVP.
InstCombine likes to generate the mask-by-low-bits pattern when widening an arithmetic expression which includes a zext in the middle.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D68811
llvm-svn: 374506
If the sign bit of the value that is being sign-extended is not set,
i.e. the value is non-negative (s>= 0), then zero-extension will suffice,
and is better for analysis: https://rise4fun.com/Alive/a8PD
llvm-svn: 374075
This addresses the issue mentioned on D19867. When we simplify
with.overflow instructions in CVP, we leave behind extractvalue
of insertvalue sequences that LVI no longer understands. This
means that we can not simplify any instructions based on the
with.overflow anymore (until some over pass like InstCombine
cleans them up).
This patch extends LVI extractvalue handling by calling
SimplifyExtractValueInst (which doesn't do anything more than
constant folding + looking through insertvalue) and using the block
value of the simplification.
A possible alternative would be to do something similar to
SimplifyIndVars, where we instead directly try to replace
extractvalue users of the with.overflow. This would need some
additional structural changes to CVP, as it's currently not legal
to remove anything but the current instruction -- we'd have to
introduce a worklist with instructions scheduled for deletion or similar.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D67035
llvm-svn: 371306
Use a { iN undef, i1 false } struct as the base, and only insert
the first operand, instead of using { iN undef, i1 undef } as the
base and inserting both. This is the same as what we do in InstCombine.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D67034
llvm-svn: 370573
Inference of nowrap flags in CVP has been disabled, because it
triggered a bug in LFTR (https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=31181).
This issue has been fixed in D60935, so we should be able to reenable
nowrap flag inference now.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D62776
llvm-svn: 364228
This reverts commit 5b32f60ec3.
The fix is in commit 4f9e68148b.
This patch fixes the CorrelatedValuePropagation pass to keep
prof branch_weights metadata of SwitchInst consistent.
It makes use of SwitchInstProfUpdateWrapper.
New tests are added.
Reviewed By: nikic
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D62126
llvm-svn: 362583
The underlying ConstantRange functionality has been added in D60952,
D61207 and D61238, this just exposes it for LVI.
I'm switching the code from using a whitelist to a blacklist, as
we're down to one unsupported operation here (xor) and writing it
this way seems more obvious :)
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D62822
llvm-svn: 362519
If we can determine that a saturating add/sub will not overflow based
on range analysis, convert it into a simple binary operation. This is
a sibling transform to the existing with.overflow handling.
Reapplying this with an additional check that the saturating intrinsic
has integer type, as LVI currently does not support vector types.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D62703
llvm-svn: 362263
Noticed on D62703. LVI only handles plain integers, not vectors of
integers. This was previously not an issue, because vector support
for with.overflow is only a relatively recent addition.
llvm-svn: 362261
If we can determine that a saturating add/sub will not overflow
based on range analysis, convert it into a simple binary operation.
This is a sibling transform to the existing with.overflow handling.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D62703
llvm-svn: 362242
This reverts commit 53f2f32865.
As reported on D62126, this causes assertion failures if the switch
has incorrect branch_weights metadata, which may happen as a result
of other transforms not handling it correctly yet.
llvm-svn: 361881
Roman Lebedev