Summary:
Currently, we
1. match `LHS` matcher to the `first` operand of binary operator,
2. and then match `RHS` matcher to the `second` operand of binary operator.
If that does not match, we swap the `LHS` and `RHS` matchers:
1. match `RHS` matcher to the `first` operand of binary operator,
2. and then match `LHS` matcher to the `second` operand of binary operator.
This works ok.
But it complicates writing of commutative matchers, where one would like to match
(`m_Value()`) the value on one side, and use (`m_Specific()`) it on the other side.
This is additionally complicated by the fact that `m_Specific()` stores the `Value *`,
not `Value **`, so it won't work at all out of the box.
The last problem is trivially solved by adding a new `m_c_Specific()` that stores the
`Value **`, not `Value *`. I'm choosing to add a new matcher, not change the existing
one because i guess all the current users are ok with existing behavior,
and this additional pointer indirection may have performance drawbacks.
Also, i'm storing pointer, not reference, because for some mysterious-to-me reason
it did not work with the reference.
The first one appears trivial, too.
Currently, we
1. match `LHS` matcher to the `first` operand of binary operator,
2. and then match `RHS` matcher to the `second` operand of binary operator.
If that does not match, we swap the ~~`LHS` and `RHS` matchers~~ **operands**:
1. match ~~`RHS`~~ **`LHS`** matcher to the ~~`first`~~ **`second`** operand of binary operator,
2. and then match ~~`LHS`~~ **`RHS`** matcher to the ~~`second`~ **`first`** operand of binary operator.
Surprisingly, `$ ninja check-llvm` still passes with this.
But i expect the bots will disagree..
The motivational unittest is included.
I'd like to use this in D45664.
Reviewers: spatel, craig.topper, arsenm, RKSimon
Reviewed By: craig.topper
Subscribers: xbolva00, wdng, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D45828
llvm-svn: 331085
Summary:
I came across this while thinking about what would happen if one of the operands in this xor pattern was itself a inverted (A & ~B) ^ (~A & B)-> (A^B).
The patterns here assume that the (~a | ~b) will be demorganed to ~(a & b) first. Though I wonder if there's a multiple use case that would prevent the demorgan.
Reviewers: spatel
Reviewed By: spatel
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D34870
llvm-svn: 306967
There are two conditions ORed here with similar checks and each contain two matches that must be true for the if to succeed. With the commutable match on the first half of the OR then both ifs basically have the same first part and only the second part distinguishs. With this change we move the commutable match to second half and make the first half unique.
This caused some tests to change because we now produce a commuted result, but this shouldn't matter in practice.
llvm-svn: 306800
Summary:
These 4 patterns have the same one use check repeated twice for each. Once without a cast and one with. But the cast has no effect on what method is called.
For the OR case I believe it is always profitable regardless of the number of uses since we'll never increase the instruction count.
For the AND case I believe it is profitable if the pair of xors has one use such that we'll get rid of it completely. Or if the C value is something freely invertible, in which case the not doesn't cost anything.
Reviewers: spatel, majnemer
Reviewed By: spatel
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D34308
llvm-svn: 305705
// (X ^ C1) | C2 --> (X | C2) ^ (C1&~C2)
This canonicalization was added at:
https://reviews.llvm.org/rL7264
By moving xors out/down, we can more easily combine constants. I'm adding
tests that do not change with this patch, so we can verify that those kinds
of transforms are still happening.
This is no-functional-change-intended because there's a later fold:
// (X^C)|Y -> (X|Y)^C iff Y&C == 0
...and demanded-bits appears to guarantee that any fold that would have
hit the fold we're removing here would be caught by that 2nd fold.
Similar reasoning was used in:
https://reviews.llvm.org/rL299384
The larger motivation for removing this code is that it could interfere with
the fix for PR32706:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=32706
Ie, we're not checking if the 'xor' is actually a 'not', so we could reverse
a 'not' optimization and cause an infinite loop by altering an 'xor X, -1'.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D33050
llvm-svn: 302733
Background/motivation - I was circling back around to:
https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=28296
I made a simple patch for that and noticed some regressions, so added test cases for
those with rL281055, and this is hopefully the minimal fix for just those cases.
But as you can see from the surrounding untouched folds, we are missing commuted patterns
all over the place, and of course there are no regression tests to cover any of those cases.
We could sprinkle "m_c_" dust all over this file and catch most of the missing folds, but
then we still wouldn't have test coverage, and we'd still miss some fraction of commuted
patterns because they require adjustments to the match order.
I'm aware of the concern about the potential compile-time performance impact of adding
matches like this (currently being discussed on llvm-dev), but I don't think there's any
evidence yet to suggest that handling commutative pattern matching more thoroughly is not
a worthwhile goal of InstCombine.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D24419
llvm-svn: 290067
I was looking to fix a bug in getComplexity(), and these cases showed up as
obvious failures. I'm not sure how to find these in general though.
llvm-svn: 281055
Correctness proof of the transform using CVC3-
$ cat t.cvc
A, B : BITVECTOR(32);
QUERY BVXOR(A | B, BVXOR(A,B) ) = A & B;
$ cvc3 t.cvc
Valid.
llvm-svn: 215524
While we can already transform A | (A ^ B) into A | B, things get bad
once we have (A ^ B) | (A ^ B ^ Cst) because reassociation will morph
this into (A ^ B) | ((A ^ Cst) ^ B). Our existing patterns fail once
this happens.
To fix this, we add a new pattern which looks through the tree of xor
binary operators to see that, in fact, there exists a redundant xor
operation.
What follows bellow is a correctness proof of the transform using CVC3.
$ cat t.cvc
A, B, C : BITVECTOR(64);
QUERY BVXOR(A, B) | BVXOR(BVXOR(B, C), A) = BVXOR(A, B) | C;
QUERY BVXOR(BVXOR(A, C), B) | BVXOR(A, B) = BVXOR(A, B) | C;
QUERY BVXOR(A, B) & BVXOR(BVXOR(B, C), A) = BVXOR(A, B) & ~C;
QUERY BVXOR(BVXOR(A, C), B) & BVXOR(A, B) = BVXOR(A, B) & ~C;
$ cvc3 < t.cvc
Valid.
Valid.
Valid.
Valid.
llvm-svn: 214342
This update was done with the following bash script:
find test/Transforms -name "*.ll" | \
while read NAME; do
echo "$NAME"
if ! grep -q "^; *RUN: *llc" $NAME; then
TEMP=`mktemp -t temp`
cp $NAME $TEMP
sed -n "s/^define [^@]*@\([A-Za-z0-9_]*\)(.*$/\1/p" < $NAME | \
while read FUNC; do
sed -i '' "s/;\(.*\)\([A-Za-z0-9_]*\):\( *\)@$FUNC\([( ]*\)\$/;\1\2-LABEL:\3@$FUNC(/g" $TEMP
done
mv $TEMP $NAME
fi
done
llvm-svn: 186268
We usually catch this kind of optimization through InstSimplify's distributive
magic, but or doesn't distribute over xor in general.
"A | ~(A | B) -> A | ~B" hits 24 times on gcc.c.
llvm-svn: 126081
Roman Lebedev