These simplifications were previously enabled only with isFast(), but that
is more restrictive than required. Since r317488, FMF has 'reassoc' to
control these cases at a finer level.
llvm-svn: 330089
This restores what was lost with rL73243 but without
re-introducing the bug that was present in the old code.
Note that we already have these transforms if the ops are
marked 'fast' (and I assume that's happening somewhere in
the code added with rL170471), but we clearly don't need
all of 'fast' for these transforms.
llvm-svn: 329362
Also, rename 'foldOpWithConstantIntoOperand' because that's annoyingly
vague. The constant check is redundant in some cases, but it allows
removing duplication for most of the calls.
llvm-svn: 326329
As discussed on llvm-dev:
http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2016-November/107104.html
and again more recently:
http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2017-October/118118.html
...this is a step in cleaning up our fast-math-flags implementation in IR to better match
the capabilities of both clang's user-visible flags and the backend's flags for SDNode.
As proposed in the above threads, we're replacing the 'UnsafeAlgebra' bit (which had the
'umbrella' meaning that all flags are set) with a new bit that only applies to algebraic
reassociation - 'AllowReassoc'.
We're also adding a bit to allow approximations for library functions called 'ApproxFunc'
(this was initially proposed as 'libm' or similar).
...and we're out of bits. 7 bits ought to be enough for anyone, right? :) FWIW, I did
look at getting this out of SubclassOptionalData via SubclassData (spacious 16-bits),
but that's apparently already used for other purposes. Also, I don't think we can just
add a field to FPMathOperator because Operator is not intended to be instantiated.
We'll defer movement of FMF to another day.
We keep the 'fast' keyword. I thought about removing that, but seeing IR like this:
%f.fast = fadd reassoc nnan ninf nsz arcp contract afn float %op1, %op2
...made me think we want to keep the shortcut synonym.
Finally, this change is binary incompatible with existing IR as seen in the
compatibility tests. This statement:
"Newer releases can ignore features from older releases, but they cannot miscompile
them. For example, if nsw is ever replaced with something else, dropping it would be
a valid way to upgrade the IR."
( http://llvm.org/docs/DeveloperPolicy.html#ir-backwards-compatibility )
...provides the flexibility we want to make this change without requiring a new IR
version. Ie, we're not loosening the FP strictness of existing IR. At worst, we will
fail to optimize some previously 'fast' code because it's no longer recognized as
'fast'. This should get fixed as we audit/squash all of the uses of 'isFast()'.
Note: an inter-dependent clang commit to use the new API name should closely follow
commit.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D39304
llvm-svn: 317488
In these cases, two selects have constant selectable operands for
both the true and false components and have the same conditional
expression.
We then create two arithmetic operations of the same type and feed a
final select operation using the result of the true arithmetic for the true
operand and the result of the false arithmetic for the false operand and reuse
the original conditionl expression.
The arithmetic operations are naturally folded as a consequence, leaving
only the newly formed select to replace the old arithmetic operation.
Patch by: Michael Berg <michael_c_berg@apple.com>
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D37019
llvm-svn: 313774
Summary:
Pointer difference simplifications currently happen only if input GEPs don't have other uses or their indexes are all constants, to avoid duplicating indexing arithmetic.
This patch enables cases with exactly one non-constant index among input GEPs to happen where there is no duplicated arithmetic or code size increase even if input GEPs have other uses.
For example, this patch allows "(&A[42][i]-&A[42][0])" --> "i", which didn't happen previously, if the input GEP(s) have other uses.
Reviewers: sanjoy, bkramer
Reviewed By: sanjoy
Subscribers: mcrosier, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D35499
llvm-svn: 309304
Previously the InstCombiner class contained a pointer to an IR builder that had been passed to the constructor. Sometimes this would be passed to helper functions as either a pointer or the pointer would be dereferenced to be passed by reference.
This patch makes it a reference everywhere including the InstCombiner class itself so there is more inconsistency. This a large, but mechanical patch. I've done very minimal formatting changes on it despite what clang-format wanted to do.
llvm-svn: 307451
http://rise4fun.com/Alive/i8Q
A narrow bitwise logic op is obviously better than math for value tracking,
and zext is better than sext. Typically, the 'not' will be folded into an
icmp predicate.
The IR difference would even survive through codegen for x86, so we would see
worse code:
https://godbolt.org/g/C14HMF
one_or_zero(int, int): # @one_or_zero(int, int)
xorl %eax, %eax
cmpl %esi, %edi
setle %al
retq
one_or_zero_alt(int, int): # @one_or_zero_alt(int, int)
xorl %ecx, %ecx
cmpl %esi, %edi
setg %cl
movl $1, %eax
subl %ecx, %eax
retq
llvm-svn: 306243
Summary: This matches the behavior we already had for compares and makes us consistent everywhere.
Reviewers: dberlin, hfinkel, spatel
Reviewed By: dberlin
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D33604
llvm-svn: 305049
This continues the changes started when computeSignBit was replaced with this new version of computeKnowBits.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D33431
llvm-svn: 303773
Summary:
Fix naming conventions and const correctness.
This completes the changes made in rL303029.
Patch by Yoav Ben-Shalom.
Reviewers: craig.topper
Reviewed By: craig.topper
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D33377
llvm-svn: 303529
Summary:
Merge overflow computation for signed add,
appearing both in InstCombine and ValueTracking.
As part of the merge,
cleanup the interface for overflow checks in InstCombine.
Patch by Yoav Ben-Shalom.
Reviewers: craig.topper, majnemer
Reviewed By: craig.topper
Subscribers: takuto.ikuta, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D32946
llvm-svn: 303029
This is another step towards favoring 'not' ops over random 'xor' in IR:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=32706
This transformation may have occurred in longer IR sequences using computeKnownBits,
but that could be much more expensive to calculate.
As the scalar result shows, we do not currently favor 'not' in all cases. The 'not'
created by the transform is transformed again (unnecessarily). Vectors don't have
this problem because vectors are (wrongly) excluded from several other combines.
llvm-svn: 302659
Change checkRippleForAdd from a heuristic to a full check -
if it is provable that the add does not overflow return true, otherwise false.
Patch by Yoav Ben-Shalom
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D32686
llvm-svn: 302093
This patch introduces a new KnownBits struct that wraps the two APInt used by computeKnownBits. This allows us to treat them as more of a unit.
Initially I've just altered the signatures of computeKnownBits and InstCombine's simplifyDemandedBits to pass a KnownBits reference instead of two separate APInt references. I'll do similar to the SelectionDAG version of computeKnownBits/simplifyDemandedBits as a separate patch.
I've added a constructor that allows initializing both APInts to the same bit width with a starting value of 0. This reduces the repeated pattern of initializing both APInts. Once place default constructed the APInts so I added a default constructor for those cases.
Going forward I would like to add more methods that will work on the pairs. For example trunc, zext, and sext occur on both APInts together in several places. We should probably add a clear method that can be used to clear both pieces. Maybe a method to check for conflicting information. A method to return (Zero|One) so we don't write it out everywhere. Maybe a method for (Zero|One).isAllOnesValue() to determine if all bits are known. I'm sure there are many other methods we can come up with.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D32376
llvm-svn: 301432
There is logic to track the expected number of instructions
produced. It thought in this case an instruction would
be necessary to negate the result, but here it folded
into a ConstantExpr fneg when the non-undef value operand
was cancelled out by the second fsub.
I'm not sure why we don't fold constant FP ops with undef currently,
but I think that would also avoid this problem.
llvm-svn: 301199
The bug was introduced by r301018 "[InstCombine] fadd double (sitofp x), y check that the promotion is valid". The patch didn't expect that fadd can be on vectors not necessarily scalars. Add vector support along with the test.
llvm-svn: 301070
Doing these transformations check that the result of integer addition is representable in the FP type.
(fadd double (sitofp x), fpcst) --> (sitofp (add int x, intcst))
(fadd double (sitofp x), (sitofp y)) --> (sitofp (add int x, y))
This is a fix for https://bugs.llvm.org//show_bug.cgi?id=27036
Reviewed By: andrew.w.kaylor, scanon, spatel
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D31182
llvm-svn: 301018
getSignBit is a static function that creates an APInt with only the sign bit set. getSignMask seems like a better name to convey its functionality. In fact several places use it and then store in an APInt named SignMask.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D32108
llvm-svn: 300856
We currently only support folding a subtract into a select but not a PHI. This fixes that.
I had to fix an assumption in FoldOpIntoPhi that assumed the PHI node was always in operand 0. Now we pass it in like we do for FoldOpIntoSelect. But we still require some dancing to find the Constant when we create the BinOp or ConstantExpr. This is based code is similar to what we do for selects.
Since I touched all call sites, this also renames FoldOpIntoPhi to foldOpIntoPhi to match coding standards.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D31686
llvm-svn: 300363
We currently only fold scalar add of constants into selects. This improves this to support vectors too.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D31683
llvm-svn: 299847
Summary:
This is my first time using the commutable matchers so wanted to make sure I was doing it right.
Are there any other matcher tricks to further shrink this? Can we commute the whole match so we don't have to LHS and RHS separately?
Reviewers: davide, spatel
Reviewed By: davide
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D31680
llvm-svn: 299840
Warren Ristow