While we already fold that pattern if the sum of shift amounts is not
smaller than bitwidth, there's painfully obvious generalization:
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/F5R
I.e. the "sub of shift amounts" tells us how many bits will be left
in the output. If it's less than bitwidth, we simply need to
apply a mask, which is constant.
llvm-svn: 372170
Summary:
If we have some pattern that leaves only some low bits set, and then performs
left-shift of those bits, if none of the bits that are left after the final
shift are modified by the mask, we can omit the mask.
There are many variants to this pattern:
b. `(x & (~(-1 << maskNbits))) << shiftNbits`
All these patterns can be simplified to just:
`x << ShiftShAmt`
iff:
b. `(MaskShAmt+ShiftShAmt) u>= bitwidth(x)`
alive proof:
b: https://rise4fun.com/Alive/y8M
For now let's start with patterns where both shift amounts are variable,
with trivial constant "offset" between them, since i believe this is
both simplest to handle and i think this is most common.
But again, there are likely other variants where we could use
ValueTracking/ConstantRange to handle more cases.
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=42563
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D64514
llvm-svn: 366536
alive proofs:
a,b: https://rise4fun.com/Alive/4zsf
c,d,e,f: https://rise4fun.com/Alive/RC49
Indeed, not all of these patterns are canonical.
But since this fold will only produce a single instruction
i'm really interested in handling even uncanonical patterns.
Other than these 6 patterns, i can't think of any other
reasonable variants right now, although i'm sure they exist.
For now let's start with patterns where both shift amounts are variable,
with trivial constant "offset" between them, since i believe this is
both simplest to handle and i think this is most common.
But again, there are likely other variants where we could use
ValueTracking/ConstantRange to handle more cases.
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=42563
llvm-svn: 365641
Roman Lebedev