The current check in CombineToPreIndexedLoadStore is too
conversative, preventing a pre-indexed store when the base pointer
is a predecessor of the value being stored. Instead, we should check
the pointer operand of the store.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D56719
llvm-svn: 351933
vecbo (insertsubv undef, X, Z), (insertsubv undef, Y, Z) --> insertsubv VecC, (vecbo X, Y), Z
This is another step in generic vector narrowing. It's also a step towards more horizontal op
formation specifically for x86 (although we still failed to match those in the affected tests).
The scalarization cases are also not optimal (we should be scalarizing those), but it's still
an improvement to use a narrower vector op when we know part of the result must be constant
because both inputs are undef in some vector lanes.
I think a similar match but checking for a constant operand might help some of the cases in
D51553.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D56875
llvm-svn: 351825
The regression test is reduced from the example shown in D56281.
This does raise a question as noted in the test file: do we want
to handle this pattern? I don't have a motivating example for
that on x86 yet, but it seems like we could have that pattern
there too, so we could avoid the back-and-forth using a shuffle.
llvm-svn: 351753
to reflect the new license.
We understand that people may be surprised that we're moving the header
entirely to discuss the new license. We checked this carefully with the
Foundation's lawyer and we believe this is the correct approach.
Essentially, all code in the project is now made available by the LLVM
project under our new license, so you will see that the license headers
include that license only. Some of our contributors have contributed
code under our old license, and accordingly, we have retained a copy of
our old license notice in the top-level files in each project and
repository.
llvm-svn: 351636
Similar to D55073. Without this change, the DAG combiner crashes on code
with more than 64k of stores in a single basic block that form parallelizable
chains.
No test case, as it would be very IR file.
Reviewed By: RKSimon
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D56740
llvm-svn: 351571
ReduceLoadWidth can trigger using a shifted mask is used and this
requires that the function return a shl node to correct for the
offset. However, the way that this was implemented meant that the
returned result could be an existing node, which would be incorrect.
This fixes the method of inserting the new node and replacing uses.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D50432
llvm-svn: 351310
The motivating case for this is shown in the first regression test. We are
transferring to scalar and back rather than just zero-extending with 'vpmovzxdq'.
That's a special-case for a more general pattern as shown here. In all tests,
we're avoiding the vector-scalar-vector moves in favor of vector ops.
We aren't producing optimal shuffle code in some cases though, so the patch is
limited to reduce regressions.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D56281
llvm-svn: 351198
This pattern:
t33: v8i32 = insert_subvector undef:v8i32, t35, Constant:i64<0>
t21: v16i32 = insert_subvector undef:v16i32, t33, Constant:i64<0>
...shows up in PR33758:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=33758
...although this patch doesn't make any difference to the final result on that yet.
In the affected tests here, it looks like it just makes RA wiggle. But we might
as well squash this to prevent it interfering with other pattern-matching.
Differential Revision:
https://reviews.llvm.org/D56604
llvm-svn: 351008
As noted in PR39973 and D55558:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=39973
...this is a partial implementation of a fold that we do as an IR canonicalization in instcombine:
// extelt (binop X, Y), Index --> binop (extelt X, Index), (extelt Y, Index)
We want to have this in the DAG too because as we can see in some of the test diffs (reductions),
the pattern may not be visible in IR.
Given that this is already an IR canonicalization, any backend that would prefer a vector op over
a scalar op is expected to already have the reverse transform in DAG lowering (not sure if that's
a realistic expectation though). The transform is limited with a TLI hook because there's an
existing transform in CodeGenPrepare that tries to do the opposite transform.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D55722
llvm-svn: 350354
Currently we expand the two nodes separately. This gives DAG combiner an opportunity to optimize the expanded sequence taking into account only one set of users. When we expand the other node we'll create the expansion again, but might not be able to optimize it the same way. So the nodes won't CSE and we'll have two similarish sequences in the same basic block. By expanding both nodes at the same time we'll avoid prematurely optimizing the expansion until both the division and remainder have been replaced.
Improves the test case from PR38217. There may be additional opportunities after this.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D56145
llvm-svn: 350239
If x has multiple sign bits than it doesn't matter which one we extend from so we can sext from x's msb instead.
The X86 setcc-combine.ll changes are a little weird. It appears we ended up with a (sext_inreg (aext (trunc (extractelt)))) after type legalization. The sext_inreg+aext now gets optimized by this combine to leave (sext (trunc (extractelt))). Then we visit the trunc before we visit the sext. This ends up changing the truncate to an extractvectorelt from a bitcasted vector. I have a follow up patch to fix this.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D56156
llvm-svn: 350235
It's dangerous to knowingly create an illegal vector type
no matter what stage of combining we're in.
This prevents the missed folding/scalarization seen in:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=40146
llvm-svn: 350034
trunc (add X, C ) --> add (trunc X), C'
If we're throwing away the top bits of an 'add' instruction, do it in the narrow destination type.
This makes the truncate-able opcode list identical to the sibling transform done in IR (in instcombine).
This change used to show regressions for x86, but those are gone after D55494.
This gets us closer to deleting the x86 custom function (combineTruncatedArithmetic)
that does almost the same thing.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D55866
llvm-svn: 350006
This saves materializing the immediate. The additional forms are less
common (they don't usually show up for bitfield insert/extract), but
they're still relevant.
I had to add a new target hook to prevent DAGCombine from reversing the
transform. That isn't the only possible way to solve the conflict, but
it seems straightforward enough.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D55630
llvm-svn: 349857
Now that SimplifyDemandedBits/SimplifyDemandedVectorElts is simplifying vector elements, we're seeing more constant BUILD_VECTOR containing undefs.
This patch provides opt-in support for UNDEF elements in matchBinaryPredicate, passing NULL instead of the result ConstantSDNode* argument.
I've updated the (or (and X, c1), c2) -> (and (or X, c2), c1|c2) fold to demonstrate its use, which I believe is safe for undef cases.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D55822
llvm-svn: 349629
As described on PR40091, we have several places where zext (and zext_vector_inreg) fold an undef input into an undef output. For zero extensions this is incorrect as the output should guarantee to least have the new upper bits set to zero.
SimplifyDemandedVectorElts is the worst offender (and its the most likely to cause new undefs to appear) but DAGCombiner's tryToFoldExtendOfConstant has a similar issue.
Thanks to @dmgreen for catching this.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D55883
llvm-svn: 349625
The transform performs a bitwise logic op in a wider type followed by
truncate when both inputs are truncated from the same source type:
logic_op (truncate x), (truncate y) --> truncate (logic_op x, y)
There are a bunch of other checks that should prevent doing this when
it might be harmful.
We already do this transform for scalars in this spot. The vector
limitation was shared with a check for the case when the operands are
extended. I'm not sure if that limit is needed either, but that would
be a separate patch.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D55448
llvm-svn: 349303
Also exposes an issue in DAGCombiner::visitFunnelShift where we were assuming the shift amount had the result type (after legalization it'll have the targets shift amount type).
llvm-svn: 349298
Summary:
If the setcc already has the target desired type we can reach the getSetCC/getSExtOrTrunc after the MatchingVecType check with the exact same types as the nodes we started with. This causes those causes VsetCC to be CSEd to N0 and the getSExtOrTrunc will CSE to N. When we return N, the caller will think that meant we called CombineTo and did our own worklist management. But that's not what happened. This prevents target hooks from being called for the node.
To fix this, I've now returned SDValue if the setcc is already the desired type. But to avoid some regressions in X86 I've had to disable one of the target combines that wasn't being reached before in the case of a (sext (setcc)). If we get vector widening legalization enabled that entire function will be deleted anyway so hopefully this is only for the short term.
Reviewers: RKSimon, spatel
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D55459
llvm-svn: 349137
This isn't quite NFC, but I don't know how to expose
any outward diffs from these changes. Mostly, this
was confusing because it used 'VT' to refer to the
operand type rather the usual type of the input node.
There's also a large block at the end that is dedicated
solely to matching loads, but that wasn't obvious. This
could probably be split up into separate functions to
make it easier to see.
It's still not clear to me when we make certain transforms
because the legality and constant conditions are
intertwined in a way that might be improved.
llvm-svn: 349095
This is a retry of rL349051 (reverted at rL349056). I changed the check for dead-ness from
number of uses to an opcode test for DELETED_NODE based on existing similar code.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D55655
llvm-svn: 349058
As discussed on D55511, this caused an issue if the inner node deletes a node that the outer node depends upon. As it doesn't affect any lit-tests and I've only been able to expose this with the D55511 change I'm committing this now.
llvm-svn: 348781
This triggers an assert when combining concat_vectors of a bitcast of
merge_values.
With asserts disabled, it fails to select:
fatal error: error in backend: Cannot select: 0x7ff19d000e90: i32 = any_extend 0x7ff19d000ae8
0x7ff19d000ae8: f64,ch = CopyFromReg 0x7ff19d000c20:1, Register:f64 %1
0x7ff19d000b50: f64 = Register %1
In function: d
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D55507
llvm-svn: 348759
This is effectively re-committing the changes from:
rL347917 (D54640)
rL348195 (D55126)
...which were effectively reverted here:
rL348604
...because the code had a bug that could induce infinite looping
or eventual out-of-memory compilation.
The bug was that this code did not guard against transforming
opaque constants. More details are in the post-commit mailing
list thread for r347917. A reduced test for that is included
in the x86 bool-math.ll file. (I wasn't able to reduce a PPC
backend test for this, but it was almost the same pattern.)
Original commit message for r347917:
The motivating case for this is shown in:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=32023
and the corresponding rot16.ll regression tests.
Because x86 scalar shift amounts are i8 values, we can end up with trunc-binop-trunc
sequences that don't get folded in IR.
As the TODO comments suggest, there will be regressions if we extend this (for x86,
we mostly seem to be missing LEA opportunities, but there are likely vector folds
missing too). I think those should be considered existing bugs because this is the
same transform that we do as an IR canonicalization in instcombine. We just need
more tests to make those visible independent of this patch.
llvm-svn: 348706
As discussed in the post-commit thread of r347917, this
transform is fighting with an existing transform causing
an infinite loop or out-of-memory, so this is effectively
reverting r347917 and its follow-up r348195 while we
investigate the bug.
llvm-svn: 348604
If this is not a valid way to assign an SDLoc, then we get this
wrong all over SDAG.
I don't know enough about the SDAG to explain this. IIUC, theoretically,
debug info is not supposed to affect codegen. But here it has clearly
affected 3 different targets, and the x86 change is an actual improvement.
llvm-svn: 348552
We shouldn't care about the debug location for a node that
we're creating, but attaching the root of the pattern should
be the best effort. (If this is not true, then we are doing
it wrong all over the SDAG).
This is no-functional-change-intended, and there are no
regression test diffs...and that's what I expected. But
there's a similar line above this diff, where those
assumptions apparently do not hold.
llvm-svn: 348550
This was probably organized as it was because bswap is a unary op.
But that's where the similarity to the other opcodes ends. We should
not limit this transform to scalars, and we should not try it if
either input has other uses. This is another step towards trying to
clean this whole function up to prevent it from causing infinite loops
and memory explosions.
Earlier commits in this series:
rL348501
rL348508
rL348518
llvm-svn: 348534
Unlike some of the folds in hoistLogicOpWithSameOpcodeHands()
above this shuffle transform, this has the expected hasOneUse()
checks in place.
llvm-svn: 348523
This patch introduces a new DAGCombiner rule to simplify concat_vectors nodes:
concat_vectors( bitcast (scalar_to_vector %A), UNDEF)
--> bitcast (scalar_to_vector %A)
This patch only partially addresses PR39257. In particular, it is enough to fix
one of the two problematic cases mentioned in PR39257. However, it is not enough
to fix the original test case posted by Craig; that particular case would
probably require a more complicated approach (and knowledge about used bits).
Before this patch, we used to generate the following code for function PR39257
(-mtriple=x86_64 , -mattr=+avx):
vmovsd (%rdi), %xmm0 # xmm0 = mem[0],zero
vxorps %xmm1, %xmm1, %xmm1
vblendps $3, %xmm0, %xmm1, %xmm0 # xmm0 = xmm0[0,1],xmm1[2,3]
vmovaps %ymm0, (%rsi)
vzeroupper
retq
Now we generate this:
vmovsd (%rdi), %xmm0 # xmm0 = mem[0],zero
vmovaps %ymm0, (%rsi)
vzeroupper
retq
As a side note: that VZEROUPPER is completely redundant...
I guess the vzeroupper insertion pass doesn't realize that the definition of
%xmm0 from vmovsd is already zeroing the upper half of %ymm0. Note that on
%-mcpu=btver2, we don't get that vzeroupper because pass vzeroupper insertion
%pass is disabled.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D55274
llvm-svn: 348522
Sam Parker