As discussed in the review, that fold is only valid for positive
divisors, so while we can negate negative divisors,
we have to special-case INT_MIN.
llvm-svn: 367294
Summary:
I'm submitting a new revision since i don't understand how to reclaim/reopen/take over the existing one, D50222.
There is no such action in "Add Action" menu...
This implements an optimization described in Hacker's Delight 10-17: when `C` is constant,
the result of `X % C == 0` can be computed more cheaply without actually calculating the remainder.
The motivation is discussed here: https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=35479.
This is a recommit, the original commit rL364563 was reverted in rL364568
because test-suite detected miscompile - the new comparison constant 'Q'
was being computed incorrectly (we divided by `D0` instead of `D`).
Original patch D50222 by @hermord (Dmytro Shynkevych)
Notes:
- In principle, it's possible to also handle the `X % C1 == C2` case, as discussed on bugzilla.
This seems to require an extra branch on overflow, so I refrained from implementing this for now.
- An explicit check for when the `REM` can be reduced to just its LHS is included:
the `X % C` == 0 optimization breaks `test1` in `test/CodeGen/X86/jump_sign.ll` otherwise.
I hadn't managed to find a better way to not generate worse output in this case.
- The `test/CodeGen/X86/jump_sign.ll` regresses, and is being fixed by a followup patch D63390.
Reviewers: RKSimon, craig.topper, spatel, hermord, xbolva00
Reviewed By: RKSimon, xbolva00
Subscribers: dexonsmith, kristina, xbolva00, javed.absar, llvm-commits, hermord
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D63391
llvm-svn: 364600
Summary:
I'm submitting a new revision since i don't understand how to reclaim/reopen/take over the existing one, D50222.
There is no such action in "Add Action" menu...
Original patch D50222 by @hermord (Dmytro Shynkevych)
This implements an optimization described in Hacker's Delight 10-17: when `C` is constant,
the result of `X % C == 0` can be computed more cheaply without actually calculating the remainder.
The motivation is discussed here: https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=35479.
Original patch author: @hermord (Dmytro Shynkevych)!
Notes:
- In principle, it's possible to also handle the `X % C1 == C2` case, as discussed on bugzilla.
This seems to require an extra branch on overflow, so I refrained from implementing this for now.
- An explicit check for when the `REM` can be reduced to just its LHS is included:
the `X % C` == 0 optimization breaks `test1` in `test/CodeGen/X86/jump_sign.ll` otherwise.
I hadn't managed to find a better way to not generate worse output in this case.
- The `test/CodeGen/X86/jump_sign.ll` regresses, and is being fixed by a followup patch D63390.
Reviewers: RKSimon, craig.topper, spatel, hermord, xbolva00
Reviewed By: RKSimon, xbolva00
Subscribers: xbolva00, javed.absar, llvm-commits, hermord
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D63391
llvm-svn: 364563
As discussed in D50222, this changes the vector types in tests required for that revision to ones legal for X86.
Patch by @hermord (Dmytro Shynkevych)
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D56372
llvm-svn: 353004
Roman Lebedev