This is a first step towards canonicalization and improved folding/codegen
for integer min/max as discussed here:
http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2016-November/106868.html
Here, we're just matching the simplest min/max patterns and adjusting the
icmp predicate while swapping the select operands.
I've included FIXME tests in test/Transforms/InstCombine/select_meta.ll
so it's easier to see how this might be extended (corresponds to the TODO
comment in the code). That's also why I'm using matchSelectPattern()
rather than a simpler check; once the backend is patched, we can just
remove some of the restrictions to allow the obfuscated min/max patterns
in the FIXME tests to be matched.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D26525
llvm-svn: 287585
This transform was originally added in r185257 but later removed in
r185415. The original transform would create instructions speculatively
and then discard them if the speculation was proved incorrect. This has
been replaced with a scheme that splits the transform into two parts:
preflight and fold. While we preflight, we build up fold actions that
inform the folding stage on how to act.
llvm-svn: 185667
I'm reverting this commit because:
1. As discussed during review, it needs to be rewritten (to avoid creating and
then deleting instructions).
2. This is causing optimizer crashes. Specifically, I'm seeing things like
this:
While deleting: i1 %
Use still stuck around after Def is destroyed: <badref> = select i1 <badref>, i32 0, i32 1
opt: /src/llvm-trunk/lib/IR/Value.cpp:79: virtual llvm::Value::~Value(): Assertion `use_empty() && "Uses remain when a value is destroyed!"' failed.
I'd guess that these will go away once we're no longer creating/deleting
instructions here, but just in case, I'm adding a regression test.
Because the code is bring rewritten, I've just XFAIL'd the original regression test. Original commit message:
InstCombine: Be more agressive optimizing 'udiv' instrs with 'select' denoms
Real world code sometimes has the denominator of a 'udiv' be a
'select'. LLVM can handle such cases but only when the 'select'
operands are symmetric in structure (both select operands are a constant
power of two or a left shift, etc.). This falls apart if we are dealt a
'udiv' where the code is not symetric or if the select operands lead us
to more select instructions.
Instead, we should treat the LHS and each select operand as a distinct
divide operation and try to optimize them independently. If we can
to simplify each operation, then we can replace the 'udiv' with, say, a
'lshr' that has a new select with a bunch of new operands for the
select.
llvm-svn: 185415
Real world code sometimes has the denominator of a 'udiv' be a
'select'. LLVM can handle such cases but only when the 'select'
operands are symmetric in structure (both select operands are a constant
power of two or a left shift, etc.). This falls apart if we are dealt a
'udiv' where the code is not symetric or if the select operands lead us
to more select instructions.
Instead, we should treat the LHS and each select operand as a distinct
divide operation and try to optimize them independently. If we can
to simplify each operation, then we can replace the 'udiv' with, say, a
'lshr' that has a new select with a bunch of new operands for the
select.
llvm-svn: 185257
Sanjay Patel