I noticed that we are missing this canonicalization in IR:
rL352515
...and then realized that we don't get this right in SDAG either,
so this has to be fixed first regardless of what we choose to do in IR.
The existing fold was limited to scalars and using the wrong predicate
to guard the transform. We have a boolean contents TLI query that can
be used to decide which direction to fold.
This may eventually lead back to the problems/question in:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=40486
...but it makes no difference to that yet.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D57401
llvm-svn: 353433
This patch has the same motivating example as D48466:
define void @foo(i64 %x, i32 %c.0282.in, i32 %d.0280, i32* %ptr0, i32* %ptr1) {
%c.0282 = and i32 %c.0282.in, 268435455
%a16 = lshr i64 32508, %x
%a17 = and i64 %a16, 1
%tobool = icmp eq i64 %a17, 0
%. = select i1 %tobool, i32 1, i32 2
%.286 = select i1 %tobool, i32 27, i32 26
%shr97 = lshr i32 %c.0282, %.
%shl98 = shl i32 %c.0282.in, %.286
%or99 = or i32 %shr97, %shl98
%shr100 = lshr i32 %d.0280, %.
%shl101 = shl i32 %d.0280, %.286
%or102 = or i32 %shr100, %shl101
store i32 %or99, i32* %ptr0
store i32 %or102, i32* %ptr1
ret void
}
...but I'm trying to kill the setcc bool math sooner rather than later.
By matching a larger pattern that includes both the low-bit mask and the trailing add/sub,
we can create a universally good fold because we always eliminate the condition code
intermediate value.
Here are Alive proofs for these (currently instcombine folds the 'add' variants, but
misses the 'sub' patterns):
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/Gsyp
Name: sub of zext cmp mask
%a = and i8 %x, 1
%c = icmp eq i8 %a, 0
%z = zext i1 %c to i32
%r = sub i32 C1, %z
=>
%optional_cast = zext i8 %a to i32
%r = add i32 %optional_cast, C1-1
Name: add of zext cmp mask
%a = and i32 %x, 1
%c = icmp eq i32 %a, 0
%z = zext i1 %c to i8
%r = add i8 %z, C1
=>
%optional_cast = trunc i32 %a to i8
%r = sub i8 C1+1, %optional_cast
All of the tests look like improvements or neutral to me. But it is possible that x86
test+set+bitop is better than what we now show here. I suspect we could do better by
adding another fold for the 'sub' variants.
We start with select-of-constant in IR in the larger motivating test, so that's why I
included tests with selects. Proofs for those variants:
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/Bx1
Name: true const is bigger
Pre: C2 == (C1 + 1)
%a = and i8 %x, 1
%c = icmp eq i8 %a, 0
%r = select i1 %c, i64 C2, i64 C1
=>
%z = zext i8 %a to i64
%r = sub i64 C2, %z
Name: false const is bigger
Pre: C2 == (C1 + 1)
%a = and i8 %x, 1
%c = icmp eq i8 %a, 0
%r = select i1 %c, i64 C1, i64 C2
=>
%z = zext i8 %a to i64
%r = add i64 C1, %z
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D48466
llvm-svn: 335433
We likely gave up on folding some select-of-constants patterns in
IR with rL331486, and we need to recover those in the DAG.
The tests without select are based on our current DAGCombiner
optimizations for select-of-constants.
llvm-svn: 335390
QingShan Zhang