For the scalar/splat case, this fold is subsumed by
foldLogOpOfMaskedICmps(). However, the conjugated fold for "or"
also supports splats with undef. Make both code paths consistent
by using m_ZeroInt() for the "and" implementation as well.
https://alive2.llvm.org/ce/z/tN63cuhttps://alive2.llvm.org/ce/z/ufB_Ue
When folding and/or of icmps, look through add of a constant and
adjust the icmp range instead. Effectively, this decomposes
X + C1 < C2 style range checks back into a normal range. This allows
us to fold comparisons involving two range checks or one range check
and some other condition. We had a fold for a really specific case
of this (or of range check and eq, and only one one side!) while
this handles it in fully generality.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D113510
Since there is just a single check for LHS in ~(A | B) & C | ...
transforms and multiple RHS checks inside with more coming I am
removing m_OneUse checks for LHS and adding new checks for RHS.
This is non essential as long as there is total benefit.
In addition (~(A | B) & C) | (~(A | C) & B) --> (B ^ C) & ~A
checks were overly restrictive, it should be good without any
additional checks.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D113141
A problem was noted in the post-commit review for
c36b7e21bd / D113035 :
If the source type is not integer or integer vector,
then we could crash when trying to ComputeNumSignBits().
Previously, InstCombine detected a pair of llvm.stacksave/stackrestore
instructions that are adjacent modulo debug instructions in order to
eliminate the llvm.stackrestore. This precludes situations where
intervening instructions (e.g. loads) preclude the llvm.stacksave and
llvm.stackrestore from becoming adjacent. This commit extends the logic
and allows for eliminating the llvm.stackrestore when the range of
instructions between them does not include any alloca or side-effect
causing instructions.
Signed-off-by: Itay Bookstein <itay.bookstein@nextsilicon.com>
Reviewed By: lebedev.ri
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D113105
Hoist the instruction classification logic outside the loop
in preparation for reuse in a future commit.
Signed-off-by: Itay Bookstein <itay.bookstein@nextsilicon.com>
Reviewed By: lebedev.ri
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D113464
The implementation for and/or is the same, apart from the choice
of exactIntersectWith() vs exactUnionWith(). Extract a common
function to make future extension easier.
Rather than testing for many specific combinations of predicates
and values, compute the exact icmp regions for both comparisons
and check whether they union/intersect exactly. If they do,
construct the equivalent icmp for the new range. Assuming that the
existing code handled all possible cases, this should be NFC.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D113367
Op0 - umax(X, Op0) --> 0 - usub.sat(X, Op1)
I'm not sure if this is really an improvement in IR because
we probably have better recognition/analysis for min/max,
but this lines up with the fold we do for the icmp+select
idiom and removes another diff from D98152.
This is similar to the previous fold in the code that was
added with:
83c2fb9f66baa6a85130https://alive2.llvm.org/ce/z/5MrVB9
(Cond & C) | (~bitcast(Cond) & D) --> bitcast (select Cond, (bc C), (bc D))
This is part of fixing:
https://llvm.org/PR34047
That report shows a case where a bitcast is sitting between the select condition
candidate and its 'not' value due to current cast canonicalization rules.
There's a bitcast type restriction that might be violated in existing matching,
but I still need to investigate if that is possible -
Alive2 shows we can only do this transform safely when the bitcast is from
narrow to wide vector elements (otherwise poison could leak into elements
that were safe in the original code):
https://alive2.llvm.org/ce/z/Hf66qh
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D113035
InstCombine converts range tests of the form (X > C1 && X < C2) or
(X < C1 || X > C2) into checks of the form (X + C3 < C4) or
(X + C3 > C4). It is possible to express all range tests in either
of these forms (with different choices of constants), but currently
neither of them is considered canonical. We may have equivalent
range tests using either ult or ugt.
This proposes to canonicalize all range tests to use ult. An
alternative would be to canonicalize to either ult or ugt depending
on the specific constants involved -- e.g. in practice we currently
generate ult for && style ranges and ugt for || style ranges when
going through the insertRangeTest() helper. In fact, the "clamp like"
fold was relying on this, which is why I had to tweak it to not
assume whether inversion is needed based on just the predicate.
Proof: https://alive2.llvm.org/ce/z/_SP_rQ
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D113366
Add a variant of getEquivalentICmp() that produces an optional
offset. This allows us to create an equivalent icmp for all ranges.
Use this in the with.overflow folding code, which was doing this
adjustment separately -- this clarifies that the fold will indeed
always apply.
umax(X, Op1) - Op1 --> usub.sat(X, Op1)
https://alive2.llvm.org/ce/z/HpcGiJ
This happens in 2 or more steps with an icmp-select idiom
instead of an intrinsic. This is another step towards
canonicalization of the min/max intrinsics. See:
D98152
There is a combine in instcombine to transform a saturated add/sub into
a saddsat/ssubsat, currently handling inputs which are both sign
extended (https://alive2.llvm.org/ce/z/68qpTn). This can generalize to,
for example ashr of at least the bitwidth (https://alive2.llvm.org/ce/z/4TFyX-
and https://alive2.llvm.org/ce/z/qDWzFs for example). Which means it
generalizes further to "the number of sign bits", needing to be enough
to truncate to the size of the saturate. (An example using `or` for
instance: https://alive2.llvm.org/ce/z/EI_h_A).
So this patch makes use of ComputeNumSignBits (with the newly added
ComputeMinSignedBits) in matchSAddSubSat to generalize the fold to any
inputs with enough sign bits known, truncating the inputs to the new
size of the saturate.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D112298
This introduces a new ComputeMinSignedBits method for ValueTracking that
returns the BitWidth - SignBits + 1 from ComputeSignBits, and represents
the minimum bit size for the value as a signed integer. Similar to the
existing APInt::getMinSignedBits method, this can make some of the
reasoning around ComputeSignBits more natural.
See https://reviews.llvm.org/D112298
The added test has poison lanes due to the vector shuffle. This can
cause an infinite loop of combines in instcombine where it folds
xor(ashr, -1) -> select (icmp slt 0), -1, 0 -> sext (icmp slt 0) -> xor(ashr, -1).
We usually prevent this by checking that the xor constant is not -1,
but with vectors some of the lanes may be -1, some may be poison. So
this changes the way we detect that from "!C1->isAllOnesValue()" to
"!match(C1, m_AllOnes())", which is more able to detect that some of the
lanes are poison.
Fixes PR52397
In D71220 a pattern was added to replace shuffle's insertelement operand
if inserted scalar is not demanded. The pattern was added only for
the case where the shuffle's mask size is equal to element's vector size.
However, that condition is not required because the pattern does not
change the shuffle vector size.
This patch extends the pattern to also include cases where shuffle's mask
size is not equal to element's vector size.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D112318
The tests diffs are logically equivalent, and so this is
generally NFC, but this makes the code match the code
comment.
It should also be more efficient. If we choose the 'not'
operand (rather than the 'not' instruction) as the select
condition, then we don't have to invert the select
condition/operands as a subsequent transform.
Similar to 54e969cffd (and with cosmetic updates to hopefully
make that easier to read), this fold has been around since early
in LLVM history.
Intermediate folds have been added subsequently, so extra uses
are required to exercise this code.
The test example actually shows an unintended consequence with
extra uses - we end up with an extra instruction compared to what
we started with. But this at least makes scalar/vector consistent.
General proof:
https://alive2.llvm.org/ce/z/tmuBza
This fold was added long ago (part of fixing PR4216),
and it matched scalars only. Intermediate folds have
been added subsequently, so extra uses are required
to exercise this code.
General proof:
https://alive2.llvm.org/ce/z/G6BBhB
One of the specific tests:
https://alive2.llvm.org/ce/z/t0JhEB
The sequence of instructions `xor (ashr X, BW-1), C` (or with a truncation
`xor (trunc (ashr X, BW-1)), C)` takes a value, produces all zeros or all
ones and with it optionally inverts a constant depending on whether the
original input was positive or negative. This is the same as checking if
the value is positive, and selecting between the constant and ~constant.
https://alive2.llvm.org/ce/z/NJ85qY
This is a fairly general version of a fold that helps pull saturating
arithmetic into a canonical form.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D109151
Fixes non-determinisctic order of XOR instructions created after
5a7a458306. The order of call argument evaluation is not
defined, so create one Value before the call.
This extends the canonicalizeClampLike function to allow cases where the
input is truncated, but still matching on the types of the ICmps. For
example
%t = trunc i32 %X to i8
%a = add i32 %X, 128
%cmp = icmp ult i32 %a, 256
%c = icmp sgt i32 %X, -1
%f = select i1 %c, i8 High, i8 Low
%r = select i1 %cmp, i8 %t, i8 %f
becomes
%c1 = icmp slt i32 %X, -128
%c2 = icmp sge i32 %X, 128
%s1 = select i1 %c1, i32 sext(Low), i32 %X
%s2 = select i1 %c2, i32 sext(High), i32 %s1
%t = trunc i32 %s2 to i8
https://alive2.llvm.org/ce/z/vPzfxH
We limit the transform to constant High and Low values, where we know
the sext are free.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D108049
The motivating test is reduced from:
https://llvm.org/PR52261
Note that the more general problem of folding any binop into a multi-use
select of constants is still there. We need to ease the restriction in
InstCombinerImpl::FoldOpIntoSelect() to catch those. But these examples
never reach that code because Negator exclusively handles negation
patterns within visitSub().
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D112657
Fixes a crash observed by oss-fuzz in 39934. Issue at hand is that code expects a pattern match on m_Mul to imply the operand is a mul instruction, however mul constexprs are also valid here.
bitcast (inselt (bitcast X), Y, 0) --> or (and X, MaskC), (zext Y)
https://alive2.llvm.org/ce/z/Ux-662
Similar to D111082 / db231ebdb0 :
We want to avoid relatively opaque vector ops on types that are
likely supported by the backend as scalar integers. The bitwise
logic ops are more likely to allow further combining.
We probably want to generalize this to allow a shift too, but
that would oppose instcombine's general rule of not creating
extra instructions, so that's left as a potential follow-up.
Alternatively, we could do that transform in VectorCombine
with the help of the TTI cost model.
This is part of solving:
https://llvm.org/PR52057
Inspired by D111968, provide a isNegatedPowerOf2() wrapper instead of obfuscating code with (-Value).isPowerOf2() patterns, which I'm sure are likely avenues for typos.....
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D111998
This is NFC-intended for the callers. Posting in case there are
other potential users that I missed.
I would also use this from VectorCombine in a patch for:
https://llvm.org/PR52178 ( D111901 )
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D111891
This removes an over-specified fold. The more general transform
was added with:
727e642e97
There's a difference on an existing test that shows a potentially
unnecessary use limit on an icmp fold.
That fold is in InstCombinerImpl::foldICmpSubConstant(), and IIRC
there was some back-and-forth on it and similar folds because they
could cause analysis/passes (SCEV, LSR?) to miss optimizations.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D111410
(iN X s>> (N-1)) & Y --> (X < 0) ? Y : 0
https://alive2.llvm.org/ce/z/qeYhdz
I was looking at a missing abs() transform and found my way to this
generalization of an existing fold that was added with D67799.
As discussed in that review, we want to make sure codegen handles
this difference well, and for all of the targets/types that I
spot-checked, it looks good.
I am leaving the existing fold in place in this commit because
it covers a potentially missing icmp fold, but I plan to remove
that as a follow-up commit as suggested during review.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D111410
Nikita Popov