The m_APFloat matcher does not work with anything but strict
splat vector constants, so we could miss these folds and then
trigger an assertion in instcombine:
https://bugs.chromium.org/p/oss-fuzz/issues/detail?id=13201
llvm-svn: 354406
If a saturating add/sub has one constant operand, then we can
determine the possible range of outputs it can produce, and simplify
an icmp comparison based on that.
The implementation is based on a similar existing mechanism for
simplifying binary operator + icmps.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D55735
llvm-svn: 349369
If a saturating add/sub with a constant operand is compared to
another constant, we should be able to determine that the condition
is always true/false in some cases (but currently don't).
llvm-svn: 349261
Extracting from a splat constant is always handled by InstSimplify.
Move the test for this from InstCombine to InstSimplify to make
sure that stays true.
llvm-svn: 348423
These tests should probably go under a separate test file because they
should fold with just -constprop, but they're similar to the scalar
tests already in here.
llvm-svn: 348045
This is an almost direct move of the functionality from InstCombine to
InstSimplify. There's no reason not to do this in InstSimplify because
we never create a new value with this transform.
(There's a question of whether any dominance-based transform belongs in
either of these passes, but that's a separate issue.)
I've changed 1 of the conditions for the fold (1 of the blocks for the
branch must be the block we started with) into an assert because I'm not
sure how that could ever be false.
We need 1 extra check to make sure that the instruction itself is in a
basic block because passes other than InstCombine may be using InstSimplify
as an analysis on values that are not wired up yet.
The 3-way compare changes show that InstCombine has some kind of
phase-ordering hole. Otherwise, we would have already gotten the intended
final result that we now show here.
llvm-svn: 347896
These are part of D54666, so adding them here before the patch to
show the baseline (currently unoptimized) results.
Patch by: @nikic (Nikita Popov)
llvm-svn: 347331
This patch fixes the issue noticed in D54532.
The problem is that cst_pred_ty-based matchers like m_Zero() currently do not match
scalar undefs (as expected), but *do* match vector undefs. This may lead to optimization
inconsistencies in rare cases.
There is only one existing test for which output changes, reverting the change from D53205.
The reason here is that vector fsub undef, %x is no longer matched as an m_FNeg(). While I
think that the new output is technically worse than the previous one, it is consistent with
scalar, and I don't think it's really important either way (generally that undef should have
been folded away prior to reassociation.)
I've also added another test case for this issue based on InstructionSimplify. It took some
effort to find that one, as in most cases undef folds are either checked first -- and in the
cases where they aren't it usually happens to not make a difference in the end. This is the
only case I was able to come up with. Prior to this patch the test case simplified to undef
in the scalar case, but zeroinitializer in the vector case.
Patch by: @nikic (Nikita Popov)
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D54631
llvm-svn: 347318
This is a problem seen in common rotate idioms as noted in:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=34924
Note that we are not canonicalizing standard IR (shifts and logic) to the intrinsics yet.
(Although I've written this before...) I think this is the last step before we enable
that transform. Ie, we could regress code by doing that transform without this
simplification in place.
In PR34924, I questioned whether this is a valid transform for target-independent IR,
but I convinced myself this is ok. If we're speculating a funnel shift by turning cmp+br
into select, then SimplifyCFG has already determined that the transform is justified.
It's possible that SimplifyCFG is not taking into account profile or other metadata,
but if that's true, then it's a bug independent of funnel shifts.
Also, we do have CGP code to restore a guard like this around an intrinsic if it can't
be lowered cheaply. But that isn't necessary for funnel shift because the default
expansion in SelectionDAGBuilder includes this same cmp+select.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D54552
llvm-svn: 346960
This is NFCI for InstCombine because it calls InstSimplify,
so I left the tests for this transform there. As noted in
the code comment, we can allow this fold more often by using
FMF and/or value tracking.
llvm-svn: 346169
Remove duplicate tests from InstCombine that were added with
D50582. I left negative tests there to verify that nothing
in InstCombine tries to go overboard. If isKnownNeverNaN is
improved to handle the FP binops or other cases, we should
have coverage under InstSimplify, so we could remove more
duplicate tests from InstCombine at that time.
llvm-svn: 340279
This is a slight modification of the tests from D50582;
change half of the predicates to 'uno' so we have coverage
for that side too. All of the positive tests can fold to a
constant (true/false), so that should happen in instsimplify.
llvm-svn: 340276
Instcombine gets some, but not all, of these cases via
it's internal reassociation transforms. It fails in
all cases with vector types.
llvm-svn: 339168
This is the second patch of the series which intends to enable jump threading for an inlined method whose return type is std::pair<int, bool> or std::pair<bool, int>.
The first patch is https://reviews.llvm.org/rL338485.
This patch handles code sequences that merges two values using `shl` and `or`, then extracts one value using `and`.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D49981
llvm-svn: 338817
This adds the NAN checks suggested in PR37776:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=37776
If both operands to maxnum are NAN, that should get constant folded, so we don't
have to handle that case. This is the same assumption as other FP ops in this
function. Returning 'false' is always conservatively correct.
Copying from the bug report:
Currently, we have this for "when is cannotBeOrderedLessThanZero
(mustBePositiveOrNaN) true for maxnum":
L
-------------------
| Pos | Neg | NaN |
------------------------
|Pos | x | x | x |
------------------------
R |Neg | x | | x |
------------------------
|NaN | x | x | x |
------------------------
The cases with (Neg & NaN) are wrong. We should have:
L
-------------------
| Pos | Neg | NaN |
------------------------
|Pos | x | x | x |
------------------------
R |Neg | x | | |
------------------------
|NaN | x | | x |
------------------------
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D50081
llvm-svn: 338716
This patch intends to enable jump threading when a method whose return type is std::pair<int, bool> or std::pair<bool, int> is inlined.
For example, jump threading does not happen for the if statement in func.
std::pair<int, bool> callee(int v) {
int a = dummy(v);
if (a) return std::make_pair(dummy(v), true);
else return std::make_pair(v, v < 0);
}
int func(int v) {
std::pair<int, bool> rc = callee(v);
if (rc.second) {
// do something
}
SROA executed before the method inlining replaces std::pair by i64 without splitting in both callee and func since at this point no access to the individual fields is seen to SROA.
After inlining, jump threading fails to identify that the incoming value is a constant due to additional instructions (like or, and, trunc).
This series of patch add patterns in InstructionSimplify to fold extraction of members of std::pair. To help jump threading, actually we need to optimize the code sequence spanning multiple BBs.
These patches does not handle phi by itself, but these additional patterns help NewGVN pass, which calls instsimplify to check opportunities for simplifying instructions over phi, apply phi-of-ops optimization to result in successful jump threading.
SimplifyDemandedBits in InstCombine, can do more general optimization but this patch aims to provide opportunities for other optimizers by supporting a simple but common case in InstSimplify.
This first patch in the series handles code sequences that merges two values using shl and or and then extracts one value using lshr.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D48828
llvm-svn: 338485
This commit includes unit tests for D48828, which enhances InstSimplify to enable jump threading with a method whose return type is std::pair<int, bool> or std::pair<bool, int>.
I am going to commit the actual transformation later.
llvm-svn: 338107
This fold is repeated/misplaced in instcombine, but I'm
not sure if it's safe to remove that yet because some
other folds appear to be asserting that the transform
has occurred within instcombine itself.
This isn't the best fix for PR37776, but it probably
hides the bug with the given code example:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=37776
We have another test to demonstrate the more general bug.
llvm-svn: 337127
This isn't the best fix for PR37776, but it probably
hides the bug with the given code example:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=37776
We have another test to demonstrate the more general
bug.
llvm-svn: 337126
isKnownNegation() is currently proposed as part of D48754,
but it could be used to make InstSimplify stronger independently
of any abs() improvements.
llvm-svn: 336822
Summary:
Support for this option is needed for building Linux kernel.
This is a very frequently requested feature by kernel developers.
More details : https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/4/4/601
GCC option description for -fdelete-null-pointer-checks:
This Assume that programs cannot safely dereference null pointers,
and that no code or data element resides at address zero.
-fno-delete-null-pointer-checks is the inverse of this implying that
null pointer dereferencing is not undefined.
This feature is implemented in LLVM IR in this CL as the function attribute
"null-pointer-is-valid"="true" in IR (Under review at D47894).
The CL updates several passes that assumed null pointer dereferencing is
undefined to not optimize when the "null-pointer-is-valid"="true"
attribute is present.
Reviewers: t.p.northover, efriedma, jyknight, chandlerc, rnk, srhines, void, george.burgess.iv
Reviewed By: efriedma, george.burgess.iv
Subscribers: eraman, haicheng, george.burgess.iv, drinkcat, theraven, reames, sanjoy, xbolva00, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D47895
llvm-svn: 336613
For both operands are unsigned, the following optimizations are valid, and missing:
1. X > Y && X != 0 --> X > Y
2. X > Y || X != 0 --> X != 0
3. X <= Y || X != 0 --> true
4. X <= Y || X == 0 --> X <= Y
5. X > Y && X == 0 --> false
unsigned foo(unsigned x, unsigned y) { return x > y && x != 0; }
should fold to x > y, but I found we haven't done it right now.
besides, unsigned foo(unsigned x, unsigned y) { return x < y && y != 0; }
Has been folded to x < y, so there may be a bug.
Patch by: Li Jia He!
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D47922
llvm-svn: 335129
These are the baseline tests for the functional change in D47922.
Patch by Li Jia He!
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D48000
llvm-svn: 335128
Summary:
`%ret = add nuw i8 %x, C`
From [[ https://llvm.org/docs/LangRef.html#add-instruction | langref ]]:
nuw and nsw stand for “No Unsigned Wrap” and “No Signed Wrap”,
respectively. If the nuw and/or nsw keywords are present,
the result value of the add is a poison value if unsigned
and/or signed overflow, respectively, occurs.
So if `C` is `-1`, `%x` can only be `0`, and the result is always `-1`.
I'm not sure we want to use `KnownBits`/`LVI` here, because there is
exactly one possible value (all bits set, `-1`), so some other pass
should take care of replacing the known-all-ones with constant `-1`.
The `test/Transforms/InstCombine/set-lowbits-mask-canonicalize.ll` change *is* confusing.
What happening is, before this: (omitting `nuw` for simplicity)
1. First, InstCombine D47428/rL334127 folds `shl i32 1, %NBits`) to `shl nuw i32 -1, %NBits`
2. Then, InstSimplify D47883/rL334222 folds `shl nuw i32 -1, %NBits` to `-1`,
3. `-1` is inverted to `0`.
But now:
1. *This* InstSimplify fold `%ret = add nuw i32 %setbit, -1` -> `-1` happens first,
before InstCombine D47428/rL334127 fold could happen.
Thus we now end up with the opposite constant,
and it is all good: https://rise4fun.com/Alive/OA9https://rise4fun.com/Alive/sldC
Was mentioned in D47428 review.
Follow-up for D47883.
Reviewers: spatel, craig.topper
Reviewed By: spatel
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D47908
llvm-svn: 334298
%ret = add nuw i8 %x, C
From langref:
nuw and nsw stand for “No Unsigned Wrap” and “No Signed Wrap”,
respectively. If the nuw and/or nsw keywords are present,
the result value of the add is a poison value if unsigned
and/or signed overflow, respectively, occurs.
So if C is -1, %x can only be 0, and the result is always -1.
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/sldC
Was mentioned in D47428 review.
llvm-svn: 334236
Summary:
`%r = shl nuw i8 C, %x`
As per langref:
```
If the nuw keyword is present, then the shift produces
a poison value if it shifts out any non-zero bits.
```
Thus, if the sign bit is set on `C`, then `%x` can only be `0`,
which means that `%r` can only be `C`.
Or in other words, set sign bit means that the signed value
is negative, so the constant is `<= 0`.
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/WMkhttps://rise4fun.com/Alive/udv
Was mentioned in D47428 review.
We already handle the `0` constant, https://godbolt.org/g/UZq1sJ, so this only handles negative constants.
Could use computeKnownBits() / LazyValueInfo,
but the cost-benefit analysis (https://reviews.llvm.org/D47891)
suggests it isn't worth it.
Reviewers: spatel, craig.topper
Reviewed By: spatel
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D47883
llvm-svn: 334222
%r = shl nuw i8 C, %x
As per langref: If the nuw keyword is present, then the shift produces
a poison value if it shifts out any non-zero bits.
Thus, if the sign bit is set on C, then %x can only be 0,
which means that %r can only be C.
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/WMk
Was mentioned in D47428 review.
llvm-svn: 334200
We already do this for min/max (see the blob above the diff),
so we should do the same for abs/nabs.
A sign-bit check (<s 0) is used as a predicate for other IR
transforms and it's likely the best for codegen.
This might solve the motivating cases for D47037 and D47041,
but I think those patches still make sense. We can't guarantee
this canonicalization if the icmp has more than one use.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D47076
llvm-svn: 332819
In order to set breakpoints on labels and list source code around
labels, we need collect debug information for labels, i.e., label
name, the function label belong, line number in the file, and the
address label located. In order to keep these information in LLVM
IR and to allow backend to generate debug information correctly.
We create a new kind of metadata for labels, DILabel. The format
of DILabel is
!DILabel(scope: !1, name: "foo", file: !2, line: 3)
We hope to keep debug information as much as possible even the
code is optimized. So, we create a new kind of intrinsic for label
metadata to avoid the metadata is eliminated with basic block.
The intrinsic will keep existing if we keep it from optimized out.
The format of the intrinsic is
llvm.dbg.label(metadata !1)
It has only one argument, that is the DILabel metadata. The
intrinsic will follow the label immediately. Backend could get the
label metadata through the intrinsic's parameter.
We also create DIBuilder API for labels to be used by Frontend.
Frontend could use createLabel() to allocate DILabel objects, and use
insertLabel() to insert llvm.dbg.label intrinsic in LLVM IR.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D45024
Patch by Hsiangkai Wang.
llvm-svn: 331841
I was reminded today that this patch got reverted in r301885. I can no
longer reproduce the failure that caused the revert locally (...almost
one year later), and the patch applied pretty cleanly, so I guess we'll
see if the bots still get angry about it.
The original breakage was InstSimplify complaining (in "assertion
failed" form) about getting passed some crazy IR when running `ninja
check-sanitizer`. I'm unable to find traces of what, exactly, said crazy
IR was. I suppose we'll find out pretty soon if that's still the case.
:)
Original commit:
Author: gbiv
Date: Mon May 1 18:12:08 2017
New Revision: 301880
URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=301880&view=rev
Log:
[InstSimplify] Handle selects of GEPs with 0 offset
In particular (since it wouldn't fit nicely in the summary):
(select (icmp eq V 0) P (getelementptr P V)) -> (getelementptr P V)
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D31435
llvm-svn: 330667
This is the last step in getting constant pattern matchers to allow
undef elements in constant vectors.
I'm adding a dedicated m_ZeroInt() function and building m_Zero() from
that. In most cases, calling code can be updated to use m_ZeroInt()
directly when there's no need to match pointers, but I'm leaving that
efficiency optimization as a follow-up step because it's not always
clear when that's ok.
There are just enough icmp folds in InstSimplify that can be used for
integer or pointer types, that we probably still want a generic m_Zero()
for those cases. Otherwise, we could eliminate it (and possibly add a
m_NullPtr() as an alias for isa<ConstantPointerNull>()).
We're conservatively returning a full zero vector (zeroinitializer) in
InstSimplify/InstCombine on some of these folds (see diffs in InstSimplify),
but I'm not sure if that's actually necessary in all cases. We may be
able to propagate an undef lane instead. One test where this happens is
marked with 'TODO'.
llvm-svn: 330550
As shown in the code comment, we don't need all of 'fast',
but we do need reassoc + nsz + nnan.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D43765
llvm-svn: 327796
This matcher implementation appears to be slightly more efficient than
the generic constant check that it is replacing because every use was
for matching FP patterns, but the previous code would check int and
pointer type nulls too.
llvm-svn: 327627
From the LangRef definition for frem:
"The value produced is the floating-point remainder of the two operands.
This is the same output as a libm ‘fmod‘ function, but without any
possibility of setting errno. The remainder has the same sign as the
dividend. This instruction is assumed to execute in the default
floating-point environment."
llvm-svn: 327626
These should all be folded. The vector tests need to have
m_AnyZero updated to ignore undef elements, but we need to
be careful not to return the existing value in that case
and unintentionally propagate undef.
llvm-svn: 327585
As shown in:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=27151
...the existing fold could miscompile when X is NaN.
The fold was also dependent on 'ninf' but that's not necessary.
From IEEE-754 (with default rounding which we can assume for these opcodes):
"When the sum of two operands with opposite signs (or the difference of two
operands with like signs) is exactly zero, the sign of that sum (or difference)
shall be +0...However, x + x = x − (−x) retains the same sign as x even when
x is zero."
llvm-svn: 327575
Summary:
This pattern came up in PR36682 / D44390
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=36682https://reviews.llvm.org/D44390https://godbolt.org/g/oKvT5H
Looking at the IR pattern in question, as per [[ https://github.com/rutgers-apl/alive-nj | alive-nj ]], for all the type combinations i checked
(input: `i16`, `i32`, `i64`; intermediate: `half`/`i16`, `float`/`i32`, `double`/`i64`)
for the following `icmp` comparisons the `uitofp`+`bitcast`+`icmp` can be evaluated to a boolean:
* `slt 0`
* `sgt -1`
I did not check vectors, but i'm guessing it's the same there.
{F5889242}
Thus all these cases are in the testcase (along with the vector variant with additional `undef` element in the middle).
There are no negative patterns here (unless alive-nj lied/is broken), all of these should be optimized.
Reviewers: spatel, majnemer, efriedma, arsenm
Reviewed By: spatel
Subscribers: wdng, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D44421
llvm-svn: 327535
This is the FP equivalent of D42818. Use it for the few cases in InstSimplify
with -0.0 folds (that's the only current use of m_NegZero()).
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D43792
llvm-svn: 327307
With the updated LangRef ( D44216 / rL327138 ) in place, we can proceed with more constant folding.
I'm intentionally taking the conservative path here: no matter what the constant or the FMF, we can
always fold to NaN. This is because the undef operand can be chosen as NaN, and in our simplified
default FP env, nothing else happens - NaN just propagates to the result. If we find some way/need
to propagate undef instead, that can be added subsequently.
The tests show that we always choose the same quiet NaN constant (0x7FF8000000000000 in IR text).
There were suggestions to improve that with a 'NaN' string token or not always print a 64-bit hex
value, but those are independent changes. We might also consider setting/propagating the payload of
NaN constants as an enhancement.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D44308
llvm-svn: 327208
These are uncontroversial and independent of a proposed LangRef edits (D44216).
I tried to fix tests that would fold away:
rL327004
rL327028
rL327030
rL327034
I'm not sure if the Reassociate tests are meaningless yet, but they probably will be
as we add more folds, so if anyone has suggestions or wants to fix those, please do.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D44258
llvm-svn: 327058
This is similar to what's done in computeKnownBits and computeSignBits. Don't do anything fancy just collect information valid for any element.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D43789
llvm-svn: 326237
Loosening the matcher definition reveals a subtle bug in InstSimplify (we should not
assume that because an operand constant matches that it's safe to return it as a result).
So I'm making that change here too (that diff could be independent, but I'm not sure how
to reveal it before the matcher change).
This also seems like a good reason to *not* include matchers that capture the value.
We don't want to encourage the potential misstep of propagating undef values when it's
not allowed/intended.
I didn't include the capture variant option here or in the related rL325437 (m_One),
but it already exists for other constant matchers.
llvm-svn: 325466
The InstCombine integer mul test file had tests that belong in InstSimplify
(including fmul tests). Move things to where they belong and auto-generate
complete checks for everything.
llvm-svn: 325037
These intrinsic folds were added with D41381, but only allowed with isFast().
That's more than necessary because FMF has 'reassoc' to apply to these
kinds of folds after D39304, and that's all we need in these cases.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D43160
llvm-svn: 324967
The diff to use 'reassoc' is part of D43160; it should not have
been made with rL324961. Reverting that part here, so we'll
see the intended diff with the code change.
llvm-svn: 324963
Some tests didn't add much value because we already show stronger
constraints for the folds in other tests, so the weaker versions
were deleted.
Moved the remaining tests into 1 file because the folds are
very similar and handled from 1 place in the code.
llvm-svn: 324961
The last assume in the test says that %B12 is 0.
The first assume says that %and1 is less than %B12.
Therefore, %and1 is unsigned less than 0...does not compute.
That means this line:
Known.Zero.setHighBits(RHSKnown.countMinLeadingZeros() + 1);
...tries to set more bits than exist.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D43052
llvm-svn: 324610
Summary:
If any vector divisor element is undef, we can arbitrarily choose it be
zero which would make the div/rem an undef value by definition.
Reviewers: spatel, reames
Reviewed By: spatel
Subscribers: magabari, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D42485
llvm-svn: 323343
This is the 'rem' counterpart to D42032 and would be folded by
D42341.
Patch by Anton Bikineev.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D42342
llvm-svn: 323067
This doesn't handle the more complicated case in the bug report yet:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=35790
For that, we have to match / look through a cast.
llvm-svn: 322327
In one case, we were handling out of bounds, but not undef indices. In the other, we were handling undef (with the comment making the analogy to out of bounds), but not out of bounds. Be consistent and treat both undef and constant out of bounds indices as producing undefined results.
As a side effect, this also protects instcombine from having to handle large constant indices as we always simplify first.
llvm-svn: 321575
Sanjay Patel