This is the last step in getting constant pattern matchers to allow
undef elements in constant vectors.
I'm adding a dedicated m_ZeroInt() function and building m_Zero() from
that. In most cases, calling code can be updated to use m_ZeroInt()
directly when there's no need to match pointers, but I'm leaving that
efficiency optimization as a follow-up step because it's not always
clear when that's ok.
There are just enough icmp folds in InstSimplify that can be used for
integer or pointer types, that we probably still want a generic m_Zero()
for those cases. Otherwise, we could eliminate it (and possibly add a
m_NullPtr() as an alias for isa<ConstantPointerNull>()).
We're conservatively returning a full zero vector (zeroinitializer) in
InstSimplify/InstCombine on some of these folds (see diffs in InstSimplify),
but I'm not sure if that's actually necessary in all cases. We may be
able to propagate an undef lane instead. One test where this happens is
marked with 'TODO'.
llvm-svn: 330550
0 - X --> X, if X is 0 or the minimum signed value
0 - X --> 0, if X is 0 or the minimum signed value and the sub is NSW
I noticed this pattern might be created in the backend after the change from D25485,
so we'll want to add a similar fold for the DAG.
The use of computeKnownBits in InstSimplify may be something to investigate if the
compile time of InstSimplify is noticeable. We could replace computeKnownBits with
specific pattern matchers or limit the recursion.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D25785
llvm-svn: 284649
Sanjay Patel