The smallest tests that expose this are codegen tests (because SelectionDAGBuilder::visitSelect() uses matchSelectPattern
to create UMAX/UMIN nodes), but it's also possible to see the effects in IR alone with folds of min/max pairs.
If these were written as unsigned compares in IR, InstCombine canonicalizes the unsigned compares to signed compares.
Ie, running the optimizer pessimizes the codegen for this case without this patch:
define <4 x i32> @umax_vec(<4 x i32> %x) {
%cmp = icmp ugt <4 x i32> %x, <i32 2147483647, i32 2147483647, i32 2147483647, i32 2147483647>
%sel = select <4 x i1> %cmp, <4 x i32> %x, <4 x i32> <i32 2147483647, i32 2147483647, i32 2147483647, i32 2147483647>
ret <4 x i32> %sel
}
$ ./opt umax.ll -S | ./llc -o - -mattr=avx
vpmaxud LCPI0_0(%rip), %xmm0, %xmm0
$ ./opt -instcombine umax.ll -S | ./llc -o - -mattr=avx
vpxor %xmm1, %xmm1, %xmm1
vpcmpgtd %xmm0, %xmm1, %xmm1
vmovaps LCPI0_0(%rip), %xmm2 ## xmm2 = [2147483647,2147483647,2147483647,2147483647]
vblendvps %xmm1, %xmm0, %xmm2, %xmm0
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D26096
llvm-svn: 286318
Try harder to detect obfuscated min/max patterns: the initial pattern was added with D9352 / rL236202.
There was a bug fix for PR27137 at rL264996, but I think we can do better by folding the corresponding
smax pattern and commuted variants.
The codegen tests demonstrate the effect of ValueTracking on the backend via SelectionDAGBuilder. We
can't expose these differences minimally in IR because we don't have smin/smax intrinsics for IR.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D26091
llvm-svn: 285499
Sanjay Patel