We may be able to assert that no shl-shl or lshr-lshr pairs ever get here
because we should have already handled those in foldShiftedShift().
llvm-svn: 292726
Simplify a packss/packus truncation based on the elements of the mask that are actually demanded.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D28777
llvm-svn: 292591
As discussed on D28777 - we don't need to handle 'all element' shuffles inside InstCombiner::visitCallInst as InstCombiner::SimplifyDemandedVectorElts will do everything we need.
llvm-svn: 292365
Add missing fabs(fpext) optimzation that worked with the call,
and also fixes it creating a second fpext when there were multiple
uses.
llvm-svn: 292172
It's not clear what 'First' and 'Second' mean, so use 'Inner' and 'Outer'
to match foldShiftedShift() and add comments with formulas, so it's easier
to see what's going on.
llvm-svn: 292153
Simplify a pshufb shuffle mask based on the elements of the mask that are actually demanded.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D28745
llvm-svn: 292101
a function's CFG when that CFG is unchanged.
This allows transformation passes to simply claim they preserve the CFG
and analysis passes to check for the CFG being preserved to remove the
fanout of all analyses being listed in all passes.
I've gone through and removed or cleaned up as many of the comments
reminding us to do this as I could.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D28627
llvm-svn: 292054
mark it as never invalidated in the new PM.
The old PM already required this to work, and after a discussion with
Hal this seems to really be the only sensible answer. The cache
gracefully degrades as the IR is mutated, and most things which do this
should already be incrementally updating the cache.
This gets rid of a bunch of logic preserving and testing the
invalidation of this analysis.
llvm-svn: 292039
cover domtree and alias analysis. These are the pretty clear analyses
that we would always want to survive this pass.
To make these survive, we also need to preserve the assumption cache.
Added a test that verifies the important bits of this preservation.
llvm-svn: 292037
Allows LLVM to optimize sequences like the following:
%add = add nuw i32 %x, 1
%cmp = icmp ugt i32 %add, %y
Into:
%cmp = icmp uge i32 %x, %y
Previously, only signed comparisons were being handled.
Decrements could also be handled, but 'sub nuw %x, 1' is currently canonicalized to
'add %x, -1' in InstCombineAddSub, losing the nuw flag. Removing that canonicalization
seems like it might have far-reaching ramifications so I kept this simple for now.
Patch by Matti Niemenmaa!
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D24700
llvm-svn: 291975
Here's my second try at making @llvm.assume processing more efficient. My
previous attempt, which leveraged operand bundles, r289755, didn't end up
working: it did make assume processing more efficient but eliminating the
assumption cache made ephemeral value computation too expensive. This is a
more-targeted change. We'll keep the assumption cache, but extend it to keep a
map of affected values (i.e. values about which an assumption might provide
some information) to the corresponding assumption intrinsics. This allows
ValueTracking and LVI to find assumptions relevant to the value being queried
without scanning all assumptions in the function. The fact that ValueTracking
started doing O(number of assumptions in the function) work, for every
known-bits query, has become prohibitively expensive in some cases.
As discussed during the review, this is a pragmatic fix that, longer term, will
likely be replaced by a more-principled solution (perhaps based on an extended
SSA form).
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D28459
llvm-svn: 291671
Some of the callers are artificially limiting this transform to integer types;
this should make it easier to incrementally remove that restriction.
llvm-svn: 291620
We can perform the following:
(add (zext (add nuw X, C1)), C2) -> (zext (add nuw X, C1+C2))
This is only possible if C2 is negative and C2 is greater than or equal to negative C1.
llvm-svn: 290927
I wrote this patch before seeing the comment in:
https://reviews.llvm.org/D27114
...that suggests we should actually be canonicalizing the other way.
So just in case we decide this is the right way, we might as well
have a cleaner implementation.
llvm-svn: 290912
Sanjay Patel