This function returns an upper bound on the number of bits needed
to represent the signed value. Use "Max" to match similar functions
in KnownBits like countMaxActiveBits.
Rename APInt::getMinSignedBits->getSignificantBits. Keeping the old
name around to keep this patch size down. Will do a bulk rename as
follow up.
Rename KnownBits::countMaxSignedBits->countMaxSignificantBits.
Reviewed By: lebedev.ri, RKSimon, spatel
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D116522
Even if we don't have any known bits, we can assume that there is
at least 1 sign bit. This is consistent with ComputeNumSignBits
which always returns at least 1.
Add KnownBits::countMaxSignedBits() which computes the number of
bits needed to represent all signed values with those known bits.
This is the signed equivalent of countMaxActiveBits().
Split from D116469.
Reviewed By: lebedev.ri
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D116500
Stop using APInt constructors and methods that were soft-deprecated in
D109483. This fixes all the uses I found in llvm, except for the APInt
unit tests which should still test the deprecated methods.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D110807
This renames the primary methods for creating a zero value to `getZero`
instead of `getNullValue` and renames predicates like `isAllOnesValue`
to simply `isAllOnes`. This achieves two things:
1) This starts standardizing predicates across the LLVM codebase,
following (in this case) ConstantInt. The word "Value" doesn't
convey anything of merit, and is missing in some of the other things.
2) Calling an integer "null" doesn't make any sense. The original sin
here is mine and I've regretted it for years. This moves us to calling
it "zero" instead, which is correct!
APInt is widely used and I don't think anyone is keen to take massive source
breakage on anything so core, at least not all in one go. As such, this
doesn't actually delete any entrypoints, it "soft deprecates" them with a
comment.
Included in this patch are changes to a bunch of the codebase, but there are
more. We should normalize SelectionDAG and other APIs as well, which would
make the API change more mechanical.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D109483
Add KnownBits handling and unit tests for X*X self-multiplication cases which guarantee that bit1 of their results will be zero - see PR48683.
https://alive2.llvm.org/ce/z/NN_eaR
The next step will be to add suitable test coverage so this can be enabled in ValueTracking/DAG/GlobalISel - currently only a single Analysis/ScalarEvolution test is affected.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D108992
Check if all possible values for a pair of knownbits give the same icmp result - these are based off the checks performed in InstCombineCompares.cpp and D86578.
Add exhaustive unit test coverage - a followup will update InstCombineCompares.cpp to use this.
ValueTracking was using a more powerful abs() implementation. Roll
it into KnownBits::abs(). Also add an exhaustive test for abs(),
in both the poisoning and non-poisoning variants.
We already offer zextOrTrunc and it seems natural to offer the
same capability for sign extension.
This patch is a preparatory addition useful for future computeKnownBits
developments.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D88937
This patch refactors the logic in ValueTracking.cpp so that
computeKnownBitsForMul now uses a helper function from KnownBits.
NFC
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D88935
The current demand propagator for addition will mark all input bits at and right of the alive output bit as alive. But carry won't propagate beyond a bit for which both operands are zero (or one/zero in the case of subtraction) so a more accurate answer is possible given known bits.
I derived a propagator by working through truth tables and using a bit-reversed addition to make demand ripple to the right, but I'm not sure how to make a convincing argument for its correctness in the comments yet. Nevertheless, here's a minimal implementation and test to get feedback.
This would help in a situation where, for example, four bytes (<128) packed into an int are added with four others SIMD-style but only one of the four results is actually read.
Known A: 0_______0_______0_______0_______
Known B: 0_______0_______0_______0_______
AOut: 00000000001000000000000000000000
AB, current: 00000000001111111111111111111111
AB, patch: 00000000001111111000000000000000
Committed on behalf of: @rrika (Erika)
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D72423
Summary:
There are at least three clients for KnownBits calculations:
ValueTracking, SelectionDAG and GlobalISel. To reduce duplication the
common logic should be moved out of these clients and into KnownBits
itself.
This patch does this for AND, OR and XOR calculations by implementing
and using appropriate operator overloads KnownBits::operator& etc.
Subscribers: hiraditya, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D74060
As it can be seen from accompanying cleanup, it is not unheard of
to write `~Known.Zero` meaning "what maximal value can this KnownBits
produce". But i think `~Known.Zero` isn't *that* self-explanatory,
as compared to a method with a name.
Note that not all `~Known.Zero` places were cleaned up,
only those where this arguably improves things.
This is for D60460. computeForAddSub() essentially already supports
carries because it has to deal with subtractions. This revision
extracts a lower-level computeForAddCarry() function, which allows
computing the known bits for add (carry known zero), sub (carry known
one) and addcarry (carry unknown).
As we don't seem to have any yet, I've added a unit test file for
KnownBits and exhaustive tests for the new computeForAddCarry()
functionality, as well the existing computeForAddSub() function.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D60522
llvm-svn: 358297
Craig Topper