Folding a select of vector constants that include undef elements only
applies to fixed vectors, but there's no earlier check the type is not
scalable so it crashes for scalable vectors. This adds a check so this
optimization is only attempted for fixed vectors.
Reviewed By: sdesmalen
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D92046
This extends D78430 to solve cases like:
https://llvm.org/PR47858
There are still missed opportunities shown in the tests,
and as noted in the earlier patches, we have related
functionality in InstCombine, so we may want to extend
other folds in a similar way.
A semi-random sampling of test diff proofs in this patch:
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/sS4C
This improves simplifications for pattern `icmp (X+Y), (X+Z)` -> `icmp Y,Z`
if only one of the operands has NSW set, e.g.:
icmp slt (x + 0), (x +nsw 1)
We can still safely rewrite this to:
icmp slt 0, 1
because we know that the LHS can't overflow if the RHS has NSW set and
C1 < C2 && C1 >= 0, or C2 < C1 && C1 <= 0
This simplification is useful because ScalarEvolutionExpander which is used to
generate code for SCEVs in different loop optimisers is not always able to put
back NSW flags across control-flow, thus inhibiting CFG simplifications.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D89317
If SimplifyWithOpReplaced() cannot simplify the value, null should
be returned. Make sure this really does happen in all cases,
including those where SimplifyBinOp() returns the original value.
This does not matter for existing users, but does mattter for
D87480, which would go into an infinite loop otherwise.
If the constant operand is the opposite of the min/max value,
then the result must be the other value.
This is based on the similar codegen transform proposed in:
D87571
As discussed in the sibling codegen functionality patch D87571,
this transform was created with D52766, but it is not correct.
The incorrect test diffs were missed during review, but the
'TODO' comment about this functionality was still in the code -
we need 'nnan' to enable this fold.
This is a followup to D86834, which partially fixed this issue in
InstSimplify. However, InstCombine repeats the same transform while
dropping poison flags -- which does not cover cases where poison is
introduced in some other way.
The fix here is a bit more comprehensive, because things are quite
entangled, and it's hard to only partially address it without
regressing optimization. There are really two changes here:
* Export the SimplifyWithOpReplaced API from InstSimplify, with an
added AllowRefinement flag. For replacements inside the TrueVal
we don't actually care whether refinement occurs or not, the
replacement is always legal. This part of the transform is now
done in InstSimplify only. (It should be noted that the current
AllowRefinement check is not sufficient -- that's an issue we
need to address separately.)
* Change the InstCombine fold to work by temporarily dropping
poison generating flags, running the fold and then restoring the
flags if it didn't work out. This will ensure that the InstCombine
fold is correct as long as the InstSimplify fold is correct.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D87445
If we know that the abs operand is known negative, we can replace
it with a neg.
To avoid computing known bits twice, I've removed the fold for the
non-negative case from InstSimplify. Both the non-negative and the
negative case are handled by InstCombine now, with one known bits call.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D87196
This addresses the remaining issue from D87188. Due to a series of
folds, we may end up with abs-of-abs represented as
x == 0 ? -abs(x) : abs(x). Rather than recognizing this as a special
abs pattern and doing an abs-of-abs fold on it afterwards,
I'm directly folding this to one of the select operands in InstSimplify.
The general pattern falls into the "select with operand replaced"
category, but that fold is not powerful enough to recognize that
both hands of the select are the same for value zero.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D87197
If we have a dominating condition that x >= y, then umax(x, y) is x,
etc. I'm doing this in InstSimplify as the corresponding transform
for the select form is also done there.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D87168
Replace the check for poison-producing instructions in
SimplifyWithOpReplaced() with the generic helper canCreatePoison()
that properly handles poisonous shifts and thus avoids the problem
from PR47322.
This additionally fixes a bug in IIQ.UseInstrInfo=false mode, which
previously could have caused this code to ignore poison flags.
Setting UseInstrInfo=false should reduce the possible optimizations,
not increase them.
This is not a full solution to the problem, as poison could be
introduced more indirectly. This is just a minimal, easy to backport
fix.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D86834
This patch changes ElementCount so that the Min and Scalable
members are now private and can only be accessed via the get
functions getKnownMinValue() and isScalable(). In addition I've
added some other member functions for more commonly used operations.
Hopefully this makes the class more useful and will reduce the
need for calling getKnownMinValue().
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D86065
As pointed out in post-commit review, this can legally be called
on instructions that are not inserted into basic blocks,
so don't blindly assume that there is basic block.
Apparently, we don't do this, neither in EarlyCSE, nor in InstSimplify,
nor in (old) GVN, but do in NewGVN and SimplifyCFG of all places..
While i could teach EarlyCSE how to hash PHI nodes,
we can't really do much (anything?) even if we find two identical
PHI nodes in different basic blocks, same-BB case is the interesting one,
and if we teach InstSimplify about it (which is what i wanted originally,
https://reviews.llvm.org/D86530), we get EarlyCSE support for free.
So i would think this is pretty uncontroversial.
On vanilla llvm test-suite + RawSpeed, this has the following effects:
```
| statistic name | baseline | proposed | Δ | % | \|%\| |
|----------------------------------------------------|-----------|-----------|-------:|---------:|---------:|
| instsimplify.NumPHICSE | 0 | 23779 | 23779 | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| asm-printer.EmittedInsts | 7942328 | 7942392 | 64 | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| assembler.ObjectBytes | 273069192 | 273084704 | 15512 | 0.01% | 0.01% |
| correlated-value-propagation.NumPhis | 18412 | 18539 | 127 | 0.69% | 0.69% |
| early-cse.NumCSE | 2183283 | 2183227 | -56 | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| early-cse.NumSimplify | 550105 | 542090 | -8015 | -1.46% | 1.46% |
| instcombine.NumAggregateReconstructionsSimplified | 73 | 4506 | 4433 | 6072.60% | 6072.60% |
| instcombine.NumCombined | 3640264 | 3664769 | 24505 | 0.67% | 0.67% |
| instcombine.NumDeadInst | 1778193 | 1783183 | 4990 | 0.28% | 0.28% |
| instcount.NumCallInst | 1758401 | 1758799 | 398 | 0.02% | 0.02% |
| instcount.NumInvokeInst | 59478 | 59502 | 24 | 0.04% | 0.04% |
| instcount.NumPHIInst | 330557 | 330533 | -24 | -0.01% | 0.01% |
| instcount.TotalInsts | 8831952 | 8832286 | 334 | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| simplifycfg.NumInvokes | 4300 | 4410 | 110 | 2.56% | 2.56% |
| simplifycfg.NumSimpl | 1019808 | 999607 | -20201 | -1.98% | 1.98% |
```
I.e. it fires ~24k times, causes +110 (+2.56%) more `invoke` -> `call`
transforms, and counter-intuitively results in *more* instructions total.
That being said, the PHI count doesn't decrease that much,
and looking at some examples, it seems at least some of them
were previously getting PHI CSE'd in SimplifyCFG of all places..
I'm adjusting `Instruction::isIdenticalToWhenDefined()` at the same time.
As a comment in `InstCombinerImpl::visitPHINode()` already stated,
there are no guarantees on the ordering of the operands of a PHI node,
so if we just naively compare them, we may false-negatively say that
the nodes are not equal when the only difference is operand order,
which is especially important since the fold is in InstSimplify,
so we can't rely on InstCombine sorting them beforehand.
Fixing this for the general case is costly (geomean +0.02%),
and does not appear to catch anything in test-suite, but for
the same-BB case, it's trivial, so let's fix at least that.
As per http://llvm-compile-time-tracker.com/compare.php?from=04879086b44348cad600a0a1ccbe1f7776cc3cf9&to=82bdedb888b945df1e9f130dd3ac4dd3c96e2925&stat=instructions
this appears to cause geomean +0.03% compile time increase (regression),
but geomean -0.01%..-0.04% code size decrease (improvement).
This is a reboot of D84655, now performing the inner icmp
simplification query without undef folds.
It should be possible to handle the current foldMinMaxSharedOp()
fold based on this, by moving the logic into icmp of min/max instead,
making it more general. We can't drop the folds for constant operands,
because those also allow undef, which we exclude here.
The tests use assumes for exhaustive coverage, and have a few
more examples of misc folds we get based on icmp simplification.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D85929
InstSimplify should do all transformations that ConstProp does, but
one thing that ConstProp does that InstSimplify wouldn't is inline
vector instructions that are constants, e.g. into a ret.
Previously vector instructions wouldn't be inlined in InstSimplify
because llvm::Simplify*Instruction() would return nullptr for specific
instructions, such as vector instructions that were actually constants,
if it couldn't simplify them.
This changes SimplifyInsertElementInst, SimplifyExtractElementInst, and
SimplifyShuffleVectorInst to return a vector constant when possible.
Reviewed By: efriedma
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D85946
This recommits the following patches now that D85684 has landed
1cf6f210a2 [IR] Disable select ? C : undef -> C fold in ConstantFoldSelectInstruction unless we know C isn't poison.
469da663f2 [InstSimplify] Re-enable select ?, undef, X -> X transform when X is provably not poison
122b0640fc [InstSimplify] Don't fold vectors of partial undef in SimplifySelectInst if the non-undef element value might produce poison
ac0af12ed2 [InstSimplify] Add test cases for opportunities to fold select ?, X, undef -> X when we can prove X isn't poison
9b1e95329a [InstSimplify] Remove select ?, undef, X -> X and select ?, X, undef -> X transforms
Similar to what we do in IIQ, add an isUndefValue() helper that
checks for undef values while respective CanUseUndef. This makes
it much easier to search for places that don't respect the flag
yet.
This is the replacement for D84250 based on D84792. As we recursively
fold with the same value twice, we need to disable undef folds,
to prevent an undef from being folded to two different values.
Reverting rG00f3579aea6e3d4a4b7464c3db47294f71cef9e4 and using the
test case from https://reviews.llvm.org/D83360#2145793, it no longer
performs the incorrect fold.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D85684
I think this is the last remaining translation of an existing
instcombine transform for the corresponding cmp+sel idiom.
This interpretation is more general though - we can remove
mismatched signed/unsigned combinations in addition to the
more obvious cases.
min/max(X, Y) must produce X or Y as the result, so this is
just another clause in the existing transform that was already
matching a min/max of min/max.
Making use of undef is not safe if the simplification result is not used
to replace all uses of the result. This leads to problems in NewGVN,
which does not replace all uses in the IR directly. See PR33165 for more
details.
This patch adds an option to SimplifyQuery to disable the use of undef.
Note that I've only guarded uses if isa<UndefValue>/m_Undef where
SimplifyQuery is currently available. If we agree on the general
direction, I'll update the remaining uses.
Reviewed By: nikic
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D84792
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/pZEr
Name: mul nuw with icmp eq
Pre: (C2 %u C1) != 0
%a = mul nuw i8 %x, C1
%r = icmp eq i8 %a, C2
=>
%r = false
Name: mul nuw with icmp ne
Pre: (C2 %u C1) != 0
%a = mul nuw i8 %x, C1
%r = icmp ne i8 %a, C2
=>
%r = true
There are potentially several other transforms we need to add based on:
D51625
...but it doesn't look like there was follow-up to that patch.
This revision adds the following peephole optimization
and it's negation:
%a = urem i64 %x, %y
%b = icmp ule i64 %a, %x
====>
%b = true
With John Regehr's help this optimization was checked with Alive2
which suggests it should be valid.
This pattern occurs in the bound checks of Rust code, the program
const N: usize = 3;
const T = u8;
pub fn split_mutiple(slice: &[T]) -> (&[T], &[T]) {
let len = slice.len() / N;
slice.split_at(len * N)
}
the method call slice.split_at will check that len * N is within
the bounds of slice, this bounds check is after some transformations
turned into the urem seen above and then LLVM fails to optimize it
any further. Adding this optimization would cause this bounds check
to be fully optimized away.
ref: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/74938
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D85092
This is based on the existing code for the non-intrinsic idioms
in InstCombine.
The vector constant constraint is non-obvious: undefs should be
ok in the outer call, but they can't propagate safely from the
inner call in all cases. Example:
https://alive2.llvm.org/ce/z/-2bVbM
define <2 x i8> @src(<2 x i8> %x) {
%0:
%m = umin <2 x i8> %x, { 7, undef }
%m2 = umin <2 x i8> { 9, 9 }, %m
ret <2 x i8> %m2
}
=>
define <2 x i8> @tgt(<2 x i8> %x) {
%0:
%m = umin <2 x i8> %x, { 7, undef }
ret <2 x i8> %m
}
Transformation doesn't verify!
ERROR: Value mismatch
Example:
<2 x i8> %x = < undef, undef >
Source:
<2 x i8> %m = < #x00 (0) [based on undef value], #x00 (0) >
<2 x i8> %m2 = < #x00 (0), #x00 (0) >
Target:
<2 x i8> %m = < #x07 (7), #x10 (16) >
Source value: < #x00 (0), #x00 (0) >
Target value: < #x07 (7), #x10 (16) >
It's always safe to pick the earlier abs regardless of the nsw flag. We'll just lose it if it is on the outer abs but not the inner abs.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D85053
abs() should be rare enough that using value tracking is not going
to be a compile-time cost burden, so use it to reduce a variety of
potential patterns. We do this in DAGCombiner too.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D85043
Cullen Rhodes