This adds a call to matchSAddSubSat from smin/smax instrinsics, allowing
the same patterns to match if the canonical form of a min/max is an
intrinsics, not a icmp/select.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D108077
The inttoptr/ptrtoint roundtrip optimization is not always correct.
We are working towards removing this optimization and adding support to specific cases where this optimization works.
In this patch, we focus on phi-node operands with inttoptr casts.
We know that ptrtoint( inttoptr( ptrtoint x) ) is same as ptrtoint (x).
So, we want to remove this roundtrip cast which goes through phi-node.
Reviewed By: aqjune
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D106289
In D106041, a freeze was added before the branch condition to solve the miscompilation problem of SimpleLoopUnswitch.
However, I found that the added freeze disturbed other optimizations in the following situations.
```
arg.fr = freeze(arg)
use(arg.fr)
...
use(arg)
```
It is a problem that occurred when arg and arg.fr were recognized as different values.
Therefore, changing to use arg.fr instead of arg throughout the function eliminates the above problem.
Thus, I add a function that changes all uses of arg to freeze(arg) to visitFreeze of InstCombine.
Reviewed By: nikic
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D106233
The inttoptr/ptrtoint roundtrip optimization is not always correct.
We are working towards removing this optimization and adding support
to specific cases where this optimization works. This patch is the
first one on this line.
Consider the example:
%i = ptrtoint i8* %X to i64
%p = inttoptr i64 %i to i16*
%cmp = icmp eq i8* %load, %p
In this specific case, the inttoptr/ptrtoint optimization is correct
as it only compares the pointer values. In this patch, we fold
inttoptr/ptrtoint to a bitcast (if src and dest types are different).
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D105088
In D104569, Freeze was inserted just before br to solve the `branching on undef` miscompilation problem.
But value analysis was being disturbed by added freeze.
```
v = load ptr
cond = freeze(icmp (and v, const), const')
br cond, ...
```
The case in which value analysis disturbed is as above.
By changing freeze to add immediately after load, value analysis will be successful again.
```
v = load ptr
freeze(icmp (and v, const), const')
=>
v = load ptr
v' = freeze v
icmp (and v', const), const'
```
In this patch, I propose the above optimization.
With this patch, the poison will not spread as the freeze is performed early.
Reviewed By: nikic, lebedev.ri
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D105392
If a logical and/or is used, we need to be careful not to propagate
a potential poison value from the RHS by inserting a freeze
instruction. Otherwise it works the same way as bitwise and/or.
This is intended to address the regression reported at
https://reviews.llvm.org/D101191#2751002.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D102279
Remove the requirement that the instruction is a BinaryOperator,
make the predicate check more compact and use slightly more
meaningful naming for the and operands.
This reverts commit 13ec913bdf.
This commit introduces new uses of the overflow checking intrinsics that
depend on implementations in compiler-rt, which Windows users generally
do not link against. I filed an issue (somewhere) to make clang
auto-link the builtins library to resolve this situation, but until that
happens, it isn't reasonable for the optimizer to introduce new link
time dependencies.
It used to be that all of our intrinsics were call instructions, but over time, we've added more and more invokable intrinsics. According to the verifier, we're up to 8 right now. As IntrinsicInst is a sub-class of CallInst, this puts us in an awkward spot where the idiomatic means to check for intrinsic has a false negative if the intrinsic is invoked.
This change switches IntrinsicInst from being a sub-class of CallInst to being a subclass of CallBase. This allows invoked intrinsics to be instances of IntrinsicInst, at the cost of requiring a few more casts to CallInst in places where the intrinsic really is known to be a call, not an invoke.
After this lands and has baked for a couple days, planned cleanups:
Make GCStatepointInst a IntrinsicInst subclass.
Merge intrinsic handling in InstCombine and use idiomatic visitIntrinsicInst entry point for InstVisitor.
Do the same in SelectionDAG.
Do the same in FastISEL.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D99976
This patch improves https://reviews.llvm.org/D76971 (Deduce attributes for aligned_alloc in InstCombine) and implements "TODO" item mentioned in the review of that patch.
> The function aligned_alloc() is the same as memalign(), except for the added restriction that size should be a multiple of alignment.
Currently, we simply bail out if we see a non-constant size - change that.
Reviewed By: jdoerfert
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D100785
recognizeBSwapOrBitReverseIdiom + collectBitParts have pattern matching to bail out early if a bswap/bitreverse pattern isn't possible - we should be able to rely on this instead without any notable change in compile time.
This is part of a cleanup towards letting matchBSwapOrBitReverse /recognizeBSwapOrBitReverseIdiom use 'root' instructions that aren't ORs (FSHL/FSHRs in particular which can be prematurely created).
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D97056
Some utilities used by InstCombine, like SimplifyLibCalls, may add new
instructions and replace the uses of a call, but return nullptr because
the inserted call produces multiple results.
Previously, the replaced library calls would get removed by
InstCombine's deleter, but after
292077072e this may not happen, if the
willreturn attribute is missing.
As a work-around, update replaceInstUsesWith to set MadeIRChange, if it
replaces any uses. This catches the cases where it is used as replacer
by utilities used by InstCombine and seems useful in general; updating
uses will modify the IR.
This fixes an expensive-check failure when replacing
@__sinpif/@__cospifi with @__sincospif_sret.
Iff we know we can get rid of the inversions in the new pattern,
we can thus get rid of the inversion in the old pattern,
this decreasing instruction count.
Note that we could position this transformation as just hoisting
of the `not` (still, iff y is freely negatible), but the test changes
show a number of regressions, so let's not do that.
Iff we know we can get rid of the inversions in the new pattern,
we can thus get rid of the inversion in the old pattern,
this decreasing instruction count.
There are 1-2 potential follow-up NFC commits to reduce
this further on the way to generalizing this for vectors.
The operand replacing path should be dead code because demanded
bits handles that more generally (D91415).
matchBSwapOrBitReverse was hardcoded to just match bswaps - we're going to need to expose the ability to match bitreverse as well, so make this part of the function call.
Prep work for PR35155 - renamed narrowRotate to narrowFunnelShift, rewrote some comments and adjusted code to collect separate shift values, although we bail if they don't match (still only rotations are only actually folded).
I'm trying to match matchFunnelShift as much as possible in case we finally get to merge these one day.
In some cases, we can negate instruction if only one of it's operands
negates. Previously, we assumed that constants would have been
canonicalized to RHS already, but that isn't guaranteed to happen,
because of InstCombine worklist visitation order,
as the added test (previously-hanging) shows.
So if we only need to negate a single operand,
we should ensure ourselves that we try constant operand first.
Do that by re-doing the complexity sorting ourselves,
when we actually care about it.
Fixes https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=47752
When replacing X == Y ? f(X) : Z with X == Y ? f(Y) : Z, make sure
that Y cannot be undef. If it may be undef, we might end up picking
a different value for undef in the comparison and the select
operand.
Normal dead code elimination ignores assume intrinsics, so we fail to
delete assumes that are not meaningful (and potentially worse if they
cause conflicts with other assumptions).
The motivating example in https://llvm.org/PR47416 suggests that we
might have problems upstream from here (difference between C and C++),
but this should be a cheap way to make sure we remove more dead code.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D87149
While since D86306 we do it's sibling fold for `insertvalue`,
we should also do this for `extractvalue`'s.
And unlike that one, the results here are, quite honestly, shocking,
as it can be observed here on vanilla llvm test-suite + RawSpeed results:
```
| statistic name | baseline | proposed | Δ | % | |%| |
|----------------------------------------------------|-----------|-----------|--------:|--------:|-------:|
| asm-printer.EmittedInsts | 7945095 | 7942507 | -2588 | -0.03% | 0.03% |
| assembler.ObjectBytes | 273209920 | 273069800 | -140120 | -0.05% | 0.05% |
| early-cse.NumCSE | 2183363 | 2183398 | 35 | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| early-cse.NumSimplify | 541847 | 550017 | 8170 | 1.51% | 1.51% |
| instcombine.NumAggregateReconstructionsSimplified | 2139 | 108 | -2031 | -94.95% | 94.95% |
| instcombine.NumCombined | 3601364 | 3635448 | 34084 | 0.95% | 0.95% |
| instcombine.NumConstProp | 27153 | 27157 | 4 | 0.01% | 0.01% |
| instcombine.NumDeadInst | 1694521 | 1765022 | 70501 | 4.16% | 4.16% |
| instcombine.NumPHIsOfExtractValues | 0 | 37546 | 37546 | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| instcombine.NumSunkInst | 63158 | 63686 | 528 | 0.84% | 0.84% |
| instcount.NumBrInst | 874304 | 871857 | -2447 | -0.28% | 0.28% |
| instcount.NumCallInst | 1757657 | 1758402 | 745 | 0.04% | 0.04% |
| instcount.NumExtractValueInst | 45623 | 11483 | -34140 | -74.83% | 74.83% |
| instcount.NumInsertValueInst | 4983 | 580 | -4403 | -88.36% | 88.36% |
| instcount.NumInvokeInst | 61018 | 59478 | -1540 | -2.52% | 2.52% |
| instcount.NumLandingPadInst | 35334 | 34215 | -1119 | -3.17% | 3.17% |
| instcount.NumPHIInst | 344428 | 331116 | -13312 | -3.86% | 3.86% |
| instcount.NumRetInst | 100773 | 100772 | -1 | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| instcount.TotalBlocks | 1081154 | 1077166 | -3988 | -0.37% | 0.37% |
| instcount.TotalFuncs | 101443 | 101442 | -1 | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| instcount.TotalInsts | 8890201 | 8833747 | -56454 | -0.64% | 0.64% |
| instsimplify.NumSimplified | 75822 | 75707 | -115 | -0.15% | 0.15% |
| simplifycfg.NumHoistCommonCode | 24203 | 24197 | -6 | -0.02% | 0.02% |
| simplifycfg.NumHoistCommonInstrs | 48201 | 48195 | -6 | -0.01% | 0.01% |
| simplifycfg.NumInvokes | 2785 | 4298 | 1513 | 54.33% | 54.33% |
| simplifycfg.NumSimpl | 997332 | 1018189 | 20857 | 2.09% | 2.09% |
| simplifycfg.NumSinkCommonCode | 7088 | 6464 | -624 | -8.80% | 8.80% |
| simplifycfg.NumSinkCommonInstrs | 15117 | 14021 | -1096 | -7.25% | 7.25% |
```
... which tells us that this new fold fires whopping 38k times,
increasing the amount of SimplifyCFG's `invoke`->`call` transforms by +54% (+1513) (again, D85787 did that last time),
decreasing total instruction count by -0.64% (-56454),
and sharply decreasing count of `insertvalue`'s (-88.36%, i.e. 9 times less)
and `extractvalue`'s (-74.83%, i.e. four times less).
This causes geomean -0.01% binary size decrease
http://llvm-compile-time-tracker.com/compare.php?from=4d5ca22b8adfb6643466e4e9f48ba14bb48938bc&to=97dacca0111cb2ae678204e52a3cee00e3a69208&stat=size-text
and, ignoring `O0-g`, is a geomean -0.01%..-0.05% compile-time improvement
http://llvm-compile-time-tracker.com/compare.php?from=4d5ca22b8adfb6643466e4e9f48ba14bb48938bc&to=97dacca0111cb2ae678204e52a3cee00e3a69208&stat=instructions
The other thing that tells is, is that while this is a massive win for `invoke`->`call` transform
`InstCombinerImpl::foldAggregateConstructionIntoAggregateReuse()` fold,
which is supposed to be dealing with such aggregate reconstructions,
fires a lot less now. There are two reasons why:
1. After this fold, as it can be seen in tests, we may (will) end up with trivially redundant PHI nodes.
We don't CSE them in InstCombine presently, which means that EarlyCSE needs to run and then InstCombine rerun.
2. But then, EarlyCSE not only manages to fold such redundant PHI's,
it also sees that the extract-insert chain recreates the original aggregate,
and replaces it with the original aggregate.
The take-aways are
1. We maybe should do most trivial, same-BB PHI CSE in InstCombine
2. I need to check if what other patterns remain, and how they can be resolved.
(i.e. i wonder if `foldAggregateConstructionIntoAggregateReuse()` might go away)
This is a reland of the original commit fcb51d8c24,
because originally i forgot to ensure that the base aggregate types match.
Reviewed By: spatel
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D86530
This reverts commit fcb51d8c24.
As buildbots report, there's apparently some missing check to ensure
that the types of incoming values match the type of PHI.
Let's revert for a moment.
While since D86306 we do it's sibling fold for `insertvalue`,
we should also do this for `extractvalue`'s.
And unlike that one, the results here are, quite honestly, shocking,
as it can be observed here on vanilla llvm test-suite + RawSpeed results:
```
| statistic name | baseline | proposed | Δ | % | |%| |
|----------------------------------------------------|-----------|-----------|--------:|--------:|-------:|
| asm-printer.EmittedInsts | 7945095 | 7942507 | -2588 | -0.03% | 0.03% |
| assembler.ObjectBytes | 273209920 | 273069800 | -140120 | -0.05% | 0.05% |
| early-cse.NumCSE | 2183363 | 2183398 | 35 | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| early-cse.NumSimplify | 541847 | 550017 | 8170 | 1.51% | 1.51% |
| instcombine.NumAggregateReconstructionsSimplified | 2139 | 108 | -2031 | -94.95% | 94.95% |
| instcombine.NumCombined | 3601364 | 3635448 | 34084 | 0.95% | 0.95% |
| instcombine.NumConstProp | 27153 | 27157 | 4 | 0.01% | 0.01% |
| instcombine.NumDeadInst | 1694521 | 1765022 | 70501 | 4.16% | 4.16% |
| instcombine.NumPHIsOfExtractValues | 0 | 37546 | 37546 | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| instcombine.NumSunkInst | 63158 | 63686 | 528 | 0.84% | 0.84% |
| instcount.NumBrInst | 874304 | 871857 | -2447 | -0.28% | 0.28% |
| instcount.NumCallInst | 1757657 | 1758402 | 745 | 0.04% | 0.04% |
| instcount.NumExtractValueInst | 45623 | 11483 | -34140 | -74.83% | 74.83% |
| instcount.NumInsertValueInst | 4983 | 580 | -4403 | -88.36% | 88.36% |
| instcount.NumInvokeInst | 61018 | 59478 | -1540 | -2.52% | 2.52% |
| instcount.NumLandingPadInst | 35334 | 34215 | -1119 | -3.17% | 3.17% |
| instcount.NumPHIInst | 344428 | 331116 | -13312 | -3.86% | 3.86% |
| instcount.NumRetInst | 100773 | 100772 | -1 | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| instcount.TotalBlocks | 1081154 | 1077166 | -3988 | -0.37% | 0.37% |
| instcount.TotalFuncs | 101443 | 101442 | -1 | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| instcount.TotalInsts | 8890201 | 8833747 | -56454 | -0.64% | 0.64% |
| instsimplify.NumSimplified | 75822 | 75707 | -115 | -0.15% | 0.15% |
| simplifycfg.NumHoistCommonCode | 24203 | 24197 | -6 | -0.02% | 0.02% |
| simplifycfg.NumHoistCommonInstrs | 48201 | 48195 | -6 | -0.01% | 0.01% |
| simplifycfg.NumInvokes | 2785 | 4298 | 1513 | 54.33% | 54.33% |
| simplifycfg.NumSimpl | 997332 | 1018189 | 20857 | 2.09% | 2.09% |
| simplifycfg.NumSinkCommonCode | 7088 | 6464 | -624 | -8.80% | 8.80% |
| simplifycfg.NumSinkCommonInstrs | 15117 | 14021 | -1096 | -7.25% | 7.25% |
```
... which tells us that this new fold fires whopping 38k times,
increasing the amount of SimplifyCFG's `invoke`->`call` transforms by +54% (+1513) (again, D85787 did that last time),
decreasing total instruction count by -0.64% (-56454),
and sharply decreasing count of `insertvalue`'s (-88.36%, i.e. 9 times less)
and `extractvalue`'s (-74.83%, i.e. four times less).
This causes geomean -0.01% binary size decrease
http://llvm-compile-time-tracker.com/compare.php?from=4d5ca22b8adfb6643466e4e9f48ba14bb48938bc&to=97dacca0111cb2ae678204e52a3cee00e3a69208&stat=size-text
and, ignoring `O0-g`, is a geomean -0.01%..-0.05% compile-time improvement
http://llvm-compile-time-tracker.com/compare.php?from=4d5ca22b8adfb6643466e4e9f48ba14bb48938bc&to=97dacca0111cb2ae678204e52a3cee00e3a69208&stat=instructions
The other thing that tells is, is that while this is a massive win for `invoke`->`call` transform
`InstCombinerImpl::foldAggregateConstructionIntoAggregateReuse()` fold,
which is supposed to be dealing with such aggregate reconstructions,
fires a lot less now. There are two reasons why:
1. After this fold, as it can be seen in tests, we may (will) end up with trivially redundant PHI nodes.
We don't CSE them in InstCombine presently, which means that EarlyCSE needs to run and then InstCombine rerun.
2. But then, EarlyCSE not only manages to fold such redundant PHI's,
it also sees that the extract-insert chain recreates the original aggregate,
and replaces it with the original aggregate.
The take-aways are
1. We maybe should do most trivial, same-BB PHI CSE in InstCombine
2. I need to check if what other patterns remain, and how they can be resolved.
(i.e. i wonder if `foldAggregateConstructionIntoAggregateReuse()` might go away)
Reviewed By: spatel
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D86530
This pattern happens in clang C++ exception lowering code, on unwind branch.
We end up having a `landingpad` block after each `invoke`, where RAII
cleanup is performed, and the elements of an aggregate `{i8*, i32}`
holding exception info are `extractvalue`'d, and we then branch to common block
that takes extracted `i8*` and `i32` elements (via `phi` nodes),
form a new aggregate, and finally `resume`'s the exception.
The problem is that, if the cleanup block is effectively empty,
it shouldn't be there, there shouldn't be that `landingpad` and `resume`,
said `invoke` should be a `call`.
Indeed, we do that simplification in e.g. SimplifyCFG `SimplifyCFGOpt::simplifyResume()`.
But the thing is, all this extra `extractvalue` + `phi` + `insertvalue` cruft,
while it is pointless, does not look like "empty cleanup block".
So the `SimplifyCFGOpt::simplifyResume()` fails, and the exception is has
higher cost than it could have on unwind branch :S
This doesn't happen *that* often, but it will basically happen once per C++
function with complex CFG that called more than one other function
that isn't known to be `nounwind`.
I think, this is a missing fold in InstCombine, so i've implemented it.
I think, the algorithm/implementation is rather self-explanatory:
1. Find a chain of `insertvalue`'s that fully tell us the initializer of the aggregate.
2. For each element, try to find from which aggregate it was extracted.
If it was extracted from the aggregate with identical type,
from identical element index, great.
3. If all elements were found to have been extracted from the same aggregate,
then we can just use said original source aggregate directly,
instead of re-creating it.
4. If we fail to find said aggregate when looking only in the current block,
we need be PHI-aware - we might have different source aggregate when coming
from each predecessor.
I'm not sure if this already handles everything, and there are some FIXME's,
i'll deal with all that later in followups.
I'd be fine with going with post-commit review here code-wise,
but just in case there are thoughts, i'm posting this.
On RawSpeed, for example, this has the following effect:
```
| statistic name | baseline | proposed | Δ | % | abs(%) |
|---------------------------------------------------|---------:|---------:|------:|--------:|-------:|
| instcombine.NumAggregateReconstructionsSimplified | 0 | 1253 | 1253 | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| simplifycfg.NumInvokes | 948 | 1355 | 407 | 42.93% | 42.93% |
| instcount.NumInsertValueInst | 4382 | 3210 | -1172 | -26.75% | 26.75% |
| simplifycfg.NumSinkCommonCode | 574 | 458 | -116 | -20.21% | 20.21% |
| simplifycfg.NumSinkCommonInstrs | 1154 | 921 | -233 | -20.19% | 20.19% |
| instcount.NumExtractValueInst | 29017 | 26397 | -2620 | -9.03% | 9.03% |
| instcombine.NumDeadInst | 166618 | 174705 | 8087 | 4.85% | 4.85% |
| instcount.NumPHIInst | 51526 | 50678 | -848 | -1.65% | 1.65% |
| instcount.NumLandingPadInst | 20865 | 20609 | -256 | -1.23% | 1.23% |
| instcount.NumInvokeInst | 34023 | 33675 | -348 | -1.02% | 1.02% |
| simplifycfg.NumSimpl | 113634 | 114708 | 1074 | 0.95% | 0.95% |
| instcombine.NumSunkInst | 15030 | 14930 | -100 | -0.67% | 0.67% |
| instcount.TotalBlocks | 219544 | 219024 | -520 | -0.24% | 0.24% |
| instcombine.NumCombined | 644562 | 645805 | 1243 | 0.19% | 0.19% |
| instcount.TotalInsts | 2139506 | 2135377 | -4129 | -0.19% | 0.19% |
| instcount.NumBrInst | 156988 | 156821 | -167 | -0.11% | 0.11% |
| instcount.NumCallInst | 1206144 | 1207076 | 932 | 0.08% | 0.08% |
| instcount.NumResumeInst | 5193 | 5190 | -3 | -0.06% | 0.06% |
| asm-printer.EmittedInsts | 948580 | 948299 | -281 | -0.03% | 0.03% |
| instcount.TotalFuncs | 11509 | 11507 | -2 | -0.02% | 0.02% |
| inline.NumDeleted | 97595 | 97597 | 2 | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| inline.NumInlined | 210514 | 210522 | 8 | 0.00% | 0.00% |
```
So we manage to increase the amount of `invoke` -> `call` conversions in SimplifyCFG by almost a half,
and there is a very apparent decrease in instruction and basic block count.
On vanilla llvm-test-suite:
```
| statistic name | baseline | proposed | Δ | % | abs(%) |
|---------------------------------------------------|---------:|---------:|------:|--------:|-------:|
| instcombine.NumAggregateReconstructionsSimplified | 0 | 744 | 744 | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| instcount.NumInsertValueInst | 2705 | 2053 | -652 | -24.10% | 24.10% |
| simplifycfg.NumInvokes | 1212 | 1424 | 212 | 17.49% | 17.49% |
| instcount.NumExtractValueInst | 21681 | 20139 | -1542 | -7.11% | 7.11% |
| simplifycfg.NumSinkCommonInstrs | 14575 | 14361 | -214 | -1.47% | 1.47% |
| simplifycfg.NumSinkCommonCode | 6815 | 6743 | -72 | -1.06% | 1.06% |
| instcount.NumLandingPadInst | 14851 | 14712 | -139 | -0.94% | 0.94% |
| instcount.NumInvokeInst | 27510 | 27332 | -178 | -0.65% | 0.65% |
| instcombine.NumDeadInst | 1438173 | 1443371 | 5198 | 0.36% | 0.36% |
| instcount.NumResumeInst | 2880 | 2872 | -8 | -0.28% | 0.28% |
| instcombine.NumSunkInst | 55187 | 55076 | -111 | -0.20% | 0.20% |
| instcount.NumPHIInst | 321366 | 320916 | -450 | -0.14% | 0.14% |
| instcount.TotalBlocks | 886816 | 886493 | -323 | -0.04% | 0.04% |
| instcount.TotalInsts | 7663845 | 7661108 | -2737 | -0.04% | 0.04% |
| simplifycfg.NumSimpl | 886791 | 887171 | 380 | 0.04% | 0.04% |
| instcount.NumCallInst | 553552 | 553733 | 181 | 0.03% | 0.03% |
| instcombine.NumCombined | 3200512 | 3201202 | 690 | 0.02% | 0.02% |
| instcount.NumBrInst | 741794 | 741656 | -138 | -0.02% | 0.02% |
| simplifycfg.NumHoistCommonInstrs | 14443 | 14445 | 2 | 0.01% | 0.01% |
| asm-printer.EmittedInsts | 7978085 | 7977916 | -169 | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| inline.NumDeleted | 73188 | 73189 | 1 | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| inline.NumInlined | 291959 | 291968 | 9 | 0.00% | 0.00% |
```
Roughly similar effect, less instructions and blocks total.
See also: rGe492f0e03b01a5e4ec4b6333abb02d303c3e479e.
Compile-time wise, this appears to be roughly geomean-neutral:
http://llvm-compile-time-tracker.com/compare.php?from=39617aaed95ac00957979bc1525598c1be80e85e&to=b59866cf30420da8f8e3ca239ed3bec577b23387&stat=instructions
And this is a win size-wize in general:
http://llvm-compile-time-tracker.com/compare.php?from=39617aaed95ac00957979bc1525598c1be80e85e&to=b59866cf30420da8f8e3ca239ed3bec577b23387&stat=size-text
See https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=47060
Reviewed By: spatel
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D85787
For a long time, the InstCombine pass handled target specific
intrinsics. Having target specific code in general passes was noted as
an area for improvement for a long time.
D81728 moves most target specific code out of the InstCombine pass.
Applying the target specific combinations in an extra pass would
probably result in inferior optimizations compared to the current
fixed-point iteration, therefore the InstCombine pass resorts to newly
introduced functions in the TargetTransformInfo when it encounters
unknown intrinsics.
The patch should not have any effect on generated code (under the
assumption that code never uses intrinsics from a foreign target).
This introduces three new functions:
TargetTransformInfo::instCombineIntrinsic
TargetTransformInfo::simplifyDemandedUseBitsIntrinsic
TargetTransformInfo::simplifyDemandedVectorEltsIntrinsic
A few target specific parts are left in the InstCombine folder, where
it makes sense to share code. The largest left-over part in
InstCombineCalls.cpp is the code shared between arm and aarch64.
This allows to move about 3000 lines out from InstCombine to the targets.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D81728
Fixes https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=46680.
Just like insertions through IRBuilder, InsertNewInstBefore()
should be using the deferred worklist mechanism, so that processing
of newly added instructions is prioritized.
There's one side-effect of the worklist order change which could be
classified as a regression. An add op gets pushed through a select
that at the time is not a umax. We could add a reverse transform
that tries to push adds in the reverse direction to restore a min/max,
but that seems like a sure way of getting infinite loops... Seems
like something that should best wait on min/max intrinsics.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D84109
Summary:
As @nikic is pointing out in https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=46680#c5,
InstCombine should not have forward instruction scans,
so let's move this transform into the proper place.
This is pretty much NFCI.
Reviewers: nikic, spatel
Reviewed By: nikic
Subscribers: hiraditya, llvm-commits, nikic
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D83670
Summary:
The actual transform i was going after was:
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/Tp9H
```
Name: zz
Pre: isPowerOf2(C0) && isPowerOf2(C1) && C1 == C0
%t0 = and i8 %x, C0
%r = icmp eq i8 %t0, C1
=>
%t = icmp eq i8 %t0, 0
%r = xor i1 %t, -1
Name: zz
Pre: isPowerOf2(C0)
%t0 = and i8 %x, C0
%r = icmp ne i8 %t0, 0
=>
%t = icmp eq i8 %t0, 0
%r = xor i1 %t, -1
```
but as it can be seen from the current tests, we already canonicalize most of it,
and we are only missing handling multi-use non-canonical icmp predicates.
If we have both `!=0` and `==0`, even though we can CSE them,
we end up being stuck with them. We should canonicalize to the `==0`.
I believe this is one of the cleanup steps i'll need after `-scalarizer`
if i end up proceeding with my WIP alloca promotion helper pass.
Reviewers: spatel, jdoerfert, nikic
Reviewed By: nikic
Subscribers: zzheng, hiraditya, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D83139
fabs(X) * fabs(Y) --> fabs(X * Y)
fabs(X) / fabs(Y) --> fabs(X / Y)
If both operands of fmul/fdiv are positive, then the result must be positive.
There's a NAN corner-case that prevents removing the more specific fold just
above this one:
fabs(X) * fabs(X) -> X * X
That fold works even with NAN because the sign-bit result of the multiply is
not specified if X is NAN.
We can't remove that and use the more general fold that is proposed here
because once we convert to this:
fabs (X * X)
...it is not legal to simplify the 'fabs' out of that expression when X is NAN.
That's because fabs() guarantees that the sign-bit is always cleared - even
for NAN values.
So this patch has the potential to lose information, but it seems unlikely if
we do the more specific fold ahead of this one.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D82277
It is possible that we can try to negate the same value multiple times.
For example, PHI nodes may happen to have multiple incoming values
(all of which must be the same value) for the same incoming basic block.
It may happen that we try to negate such a PHI node, and succeed,
and that might result in having now-different incoming values..
To avoid that, and in general to reduce the amount of duplicated
work we might be doing, let's introduce a cache where
we'll track results of negating each value.
The added test was previously failing -verify after -instcombine.
Fixes https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=46362
- Now all SalvageDebugInfo() calls will mark undef if the salvage
attempt fails.
Reviewed by: vsk, Orlando
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D78369
SimplifyDemandedVectorElts() bails out on ScalableVectorType
anyway, but we can exit faster with the external check.
Move this to a helper function because there are likely other
vector folds that we can try here.
In `InstCombiner::visitAdd()`, we have
```
// A+B --> A|B iff A and B have no bits set in common.
if (haveNoCommonBitsSet(LHS, RHS, DL, &AC, &I, &DT))
return BinaryOperator::CreateOr(LHS, RHS);
```
so we should handle such `or`'s here, too.
Nikita Popov