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
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
Summary:
This is [[ https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=37603 | PR37603 ]].
https://godbolt.org/g/VCMNpShttps://rise4fun.com/Alive/idM
When doing bit manipulations, it is quite common to calculate some bit mask,
and apply it to some value via `and`.
The typical C code looks like:
```
int mask_signed_add(int nbits) {
return (1 << nbits) - 1;
}
```
which is translated into (with `-O3`)
```
define dso_local i32 @mask_signed_add(int)(i32) local_unnamed_addr #0 {
%2 = shl i32 1, %0
%3 = add nsw i32 %2, -1
ret i32 %3
}
```
But there is a second, less readable variant:
```
int mask_signed_xor(int nbits) {
return ~(-(1 << nbits));
}
```
which is translated into (with `-O3`)
```
define dso_local i32 @mask_signed_xor(int)(i32) local_unnamed_addr #0 {
%2 = shl i32 -1, %0
%3 = xor i32 %2, -1
ret i32 %3
}
```
Since we created such a mask, it is quite likely that we will use it in `and` next.
And then we may get rid of `not` op by folding into `andn`.
But now that i have actually looked:
https://godbolt.org/g/VTUDmU
_some_ backend changes will be needed too.
We clearly loose `bzhi` recognition.
Reviewers: spatel, craig.topper, RKSimon
Reviewed By: spatel
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D47428
llvm-svn: 334127
Roman Lebedev