Summary:
I don't have a direct motivational case for this,
but it would be good to have this for completeness/symmetry.
This pattern is basically the motivational pattern from
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=43251
but with different predicate that requires that the offset is non-zero.
The completeness bit comes from the fact that a similar pattern (offset != zero)
will be needed for https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=43259,
so it'd seem to be good to not overlook very similar patterns..
Proofs: https://rise4fun.com/Alive/21b
Also, there is something odd with `isKnownNonZero()`, if the non-zero
knowledge was specified as an assumption, it didn't pick it up (PR43267)
Reviewers: spatel, nikic, xbolva00
Reviewed By: spatel
Subscribers: hiraditya, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D67411
llvm-svn: 371718
This was actually the original intention in D67332,
but i messed up and forgot about it.
This patch was originally part of D67411, but precommitting this.
llvm-svn: 371630
I only want to ensure that %offset is non-zero there,
it doesn't matter how that info is conveyed.
As filed in PR43267, the assumption way does not work.
llvm-svn: 371546
Summary:
This is motivated by D67122 sanitizer check enhancement.
That patch seemingly worsens `-fsanitize=pointer-overflow`
overhead from 25% to 50%, which strongly implies missing folds.
In this particular case, given
```
char* test(char& base, unsigned long offset) {
return &base + offset;
}
```
it will end up producing something like
https://godbolt.org/z/LK5-iH
which after optimizations reduces down to roughly
```
define i1 @t0(i8* nonnull %base, i64 %offset) {
%base_int = ptrtoint i8* %base to i64
%adjusted = add i64 %base_int, %offset
%non_null_after_adjustment = icmp ne i64 %adjusted, 0
%no_overflow_during_adjustment = icmp uge i64 %adjusted, %base_int
%res = and i1 %non_null_after_adjustment, %no_overflow_during_adjustment
ret i1 %res
}
```
Without D67122 there was no `%non_null_after_adjustment`,
and in this particular case we can get rid of the overhead:
Here we add some offset to a non-null pointer,
and check that the result does not overflow and is not a null pointer.
But since the base pointer is already non-null, and we check for overflow,
that overflow check will already catch the null pointer,
so the separate null check is redundant and can be dropped.
Alive proofs:
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/WRzq
There are more patterns of "unsigned-add-with-overflow", they are not handled here,
but this is the main pattern, that we currently consider canonical,
so it makes sense to handle it.
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=43246
Reviewers: spatel, nikic, vsk
Reviewed By: spatel
Subscribers: hiraditya, llvm-commits, reames
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D67332
llvm-svn: 371349
Summary:
Now that with D65143/D65144 we've produce `@llvm.umul.with.overflow`,
and with D65147 we've flattened the CFG, we now can see that
the guard may have been there to prevent division by zero is redundant.
We can simply drop it:
```
----------------------------------------
Name: no overflow or zero
%iszero = icmp eq i4 %y, 0
%umul = smul_overflow i4 %x, %y
%umul.ov = extractvalue {i4, i1} %umul, 1
%umul.ov.not = xor %umul.ov, -1
%retval.0 = or i1 %iszero, %umul.ov.not
ret i1 %retval.0
=>
%iszero = icmp eq i4 %y, 0
%umul = smul_overflow i4 %x, %y
%umul.ov = extractvalue {i4, i1} %umul, 1
%umul.ov.not = xor %umul.ov, -1
%retval.0 = or i1 %iszero, %umul.ov.not
ret i1 %umul.ov.not
Done: 1
Optimization is correct!
```
Note that this is inverted from what we have in a previous patch,
here we are looking for the inverted overflow bit.
And that inversion is kinda problematic - given this particular
pattern we neither hoist that `not` closer to `ret` (then the pattern
would have been identical to the one without inversion,
and would have been handled by the previous patch), neither
do the opposite transform. But regardless, we should handle this too.
I've filled [[ https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=42720 | PR42720 ]].
Reviewers: nikic, spatel, xbolva00, RKSimon
Reviewed By: spatel
Subscribers: hiraditya, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D65151
llvm-svn: 370351
Summary:
Now that with D65143/D65144 we've produce `@llvm.umul.with.overflow`,
and with D65147 we've flattened the CFG, we now can see that
the guard may have been there to prevent division by zero is redundant.
We can simply drop it:
```
----------------------------------------
Name: no overflow and not zero
%iszero = icmp ne i4 %y, 0
%umul = umul_overflow i4 %x, %y
%umul.ov = extractvalue {i4, i1} %umul, 1
%retval.0 = and i1 %iszero, %umul.ov
ret i1 %retval.0
=>
%iszero = icmp ne i4 %y, 0
%umul = umul_overflow i4 %x, %y
%umul.ov = extractvalue {i4, i1} %umul, 1
%retval.0 = and i1 %iszero, %umul.ov
ret %umul.ov
Done: 1
Optimization is correct!
```
Reviewers: nikic, spatel, xbolva00
Reviewed By: spatel
Subscribers: hiraditya, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D65150
llvm-svn: 370350
Summary:
Make sure that we report that changes has been made
by InstSimplify also in situations when only trivially
dead instructions has been removed. If for example a call
is removed the call graph must be updated.
Bug seem to have been introduced by llvm-svn r367173
(commit 02b9e45a7e), since the code in question
was rewritten in that commit.
Reviewers: spatel, chandlerc, foad
Reviewed By: spatel
Subscribers: hiraditya, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D65973
llvm-svn: 368401
The matchSelectPattern code can match patterns like (x >= 0) ? x : -x
for absolute value. But it can also match ((x-y) >= 0) ? (x-y) : (y-x).
If the latter form was matched we can only use the nsw flag if its
set on both subtracts.
This match makes sure we're looking at the former case only.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D65692
llvm-svn: 368195
computeKnownBits will indicate the sign bit of abs is 0 if the
the RHS operand returned by matchSelectPattern has the nsw flag set.
For abs idioms like (X >= 0) ? X : -X, the RHS returns -X. But
we can also match ((X-Y) >= 0 ? X-Y : Y-X as abs. In this case
RHS will be the Y-X operand. According to Alive, the sign bit for
this is only 0 if both the X-Y and Y-X operands have the nsw flag.
But we're only checking the Y-X operand.
llvm-svn: 367747
The test case from:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=42771
...shows a ~30x slowdown caused by the awkward loop iteration (rL207302) that is
seemingly done just to avoid invalidating the instruction iterator. We can instead
delay instruction deletion until we reach the end of the block (or we could delay
until we reach the end of all blocks).
There's a test diff here for a degenerate case with llvm.assume that is not
meaningful in itself, but serves to verify this change in logic.
This change probably doesn't result in much overall compile-time improvement
because we call '-instsimplify' as a standalone pass only once in the standard
-O2 opt pipeline currently.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D65336
llvm-svn: 367173
It would be already handled by the non-inverted case if we were hoisting
the `not` in InstCombine, but we don't (granted, we don't sink it
in this case either), so this is a separate case.
llvm-svn: 366801
Summary:
- As the pointer stripping could trace through `addrspacecast` now, need
to sext/trunc the offset to ensure it has the same width as the
pointer after stripping.
Reviewers: jdoerfert
Subscribers: hiraditya, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D64768
llvm-svn: 366162
As discussed in PR42314:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=42314
Improving the canonicalization for these patterns:
rL363956
...means we should adjust/enhance the related simplification.
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/w1cp
Name: isPow2 or zero
%x = and i32 %xx, 2048
%a = add i32 %x, -1
%r = and i32 %a, %x
=>
%r = i32 0
llvm-svn: 363997
I added a canonicalization to create this general pattern in:
rL363956
But as noted in PR42314:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=42314#c11
...we have a (potentially expensive) simplification for the version
of the code that we just canonicalized away from, so we should
add/adjust that code to match.
llvm-svn: 363981
Summary:
The test case does an (out of bounds) load from a global constant with
type <3 x float>. InstSimplify tried to turn this into an integer load
of the whole alloc size of the vector, which is 128 bits due to
alignment padding, and then bitcast this to <3 x vector> which failed
an assertion due to the type size mismatch.
The fix is to do an integer load of the normal size of the vector, with
no alignment padding.
Reviewers: tpr, arsenm, majnemer, dstuttard
Reviewed By: arsenm
Subscribers: hfinkel, wdng, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D63375
llvm-svn: 363784
Fix folds of addo and subo with an undef operand to be:
`@llvm.{u,s}{add,sub}.with.overflow` all fold to `{ undef, false }`,
as per LLVM undef rules.
Same for commuted variants.
Based on the original version of the patch by @nikic.
Fixes [[ https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=42209 | PR42209 ]]
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D63065
llvm-svn: 363522
This is another step towards correcting our usage of fast-math-flags when applied on an fcmp.
In this case, we are checking for 'nnan' on the fcmp itself rather than the operand of
the fcmp. But I'm leaving that clause in until we're more confident that we can stop
relying on fcmp's FMF.
By using the more general "isKnownNeverNaN()", we gain a simplification shown on the
tests with 'uitofp' regardless of the FMF on the fcmp (uitofp never produces a NaN).
On the tests with 'fabs', we are now relying on the FMF for the call fabs instruction
in addition to the FMF on the fcmp.
This is a continuation of D62979 / rL362879.
llvm-svn: 362903
This is 1 step towards correcting our usage of fast-math-flags when applied on an fcmp.
In this case, we are checking for 'nnan' on the fcmp itself rather than the operand of
the fcmp. But I'm leaving that clause in until we're more confident that we can stop
relying on fcmp's FMF.
By using the more general "isKnownNeverNaN()", we gain a simplification shown on the
tests with 'uitofp' regardless of the FMF on the fcmp (uitofp never produces a NaN).
On the tests with 'fabs', we are now relying on the FMF for the call fabs instruction
in addition to the FMF on the fcmp.
I'll update the 'ult' case below here as a follow-up assuming no problems here.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D62979
llvm-svn: 362879
This was part of InstCombine, but it's better placed in
InstSimplify. InstCombine also had an unreachable but weaker
fold for insertelement with undef index, so that is deleted.
llvm-svn: 361559
This is the sibling transform for rL360899 (D61691):
maxnum(X, GreaterC) == C --> false
maxnum(X, GreaterC) <= C --> false
maxnum(X, GreaterC) < C --> false
maxnum(X, GreaterC) >= C --> true
maxnum(X, GreaterC) > C --> true
maxnum(X, GreaterC) != C --> true
llvm-svn: 361118
These were new tests I added in r360808. I made a mistake while converting the exisiting binary FNeg test into the new unary FNeg tests. Correct that.
llvm-svn: 360928
minnum(X, LesserC) == C --> false
minnum(X, LesserC) >= C --> false
minnum(X, LesserC) > C --> false
minnum(X, LesserC) != C --> true
minnum(X, LesserC) <= C --> true
minnum(X, LesserC) < C --> true
maxnum siblings will follow if there are no problems here.
We should be able to perform some other combines when the constants
are equal or greater-than too, but that would go in instcombine.
We might also generalize this by creating an FP ConstantRange
(similar to what we do for integers).
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D61691
llvm-svn: 360899
Roman Lebedev