The APInt was created from an 'unsigned' and we just wanted to know how many bits the value needed to represent it. We can just use Log2_32 from MathExtras.h to get the info.
llvm-svn: 300309
We call it unconditionally on the operands of the select. Then decide if its a min/max and call it on the min/max operands or on the select operands again. Either of those second calls will overwrite the results of the initial call so we can just delete the first call.
llvm-svn: 300256
Previously it tried to call SimplifyInstruction which doesn't know anything about alloca so defers to constant folding which also doesn't do anything with alloca. This results in wasted cycles making calls that won't do anything. Given the frequency with which this function is called this time adds up.
llvm-svn: 300118
SimplifyDemandedUseBits for Add/Sub already recursed down LHS and RHS for simplifying bits. If that didn't provide any simplifications we fall back to calling computeKnownBits which will recurse again. Instead just take the known bits for LHS and RHS we already have and call into a new function in ValueTracking that can calculate the known bits given the LHS/RHS bits.
llvm-svn: 298711
The code assigned to KnownZero, but later code unconditionally assigned over it. I'm pretty sure the later code can handle the same cases and more equally well.
llvm-svn: 298190
If it is possible for the RHS of a shift operation to be greater than or equal
to the bit-width, then the result might be undef, and we can't report any known
bits.
In some cases, this was allowing a transformation in instcombine which widened
an undef value from i1 to i32, increasing the range of values that a function
could return.
Differential revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D30781
llvm-svn: 297724
A block with an UnreachableInst does not transfer execution to a successor.
The problem was exposed by GVN-hoist. This patch fixes bug 32153.
Patch by Aditya Kumar.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D30667
llvm-svn: 297254
Summary:
Previously we used to return a bogus result, 0, for IR like `ashr %val,
-1`.
I've also added an assert checking that `ComputeNumSignBits` at least
returns 1. That assert found an already checked in test case where we
were returning a bad result for `ashr %val, -1`.
Fixes PR32045.
Reviewers: spatel, majnemer
Reviewed By: spatel, majnemer
Subscribers: efriedma, mcrosier, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D30311
llvm-svn: 296273
Summary:
Motivation: fix PR31181 without regression (the actual fix is still in
progress). However, the actual content of PR31181 is not relevant
here.
This change makes poison propagation more aggressive in the following
cases:
1. poision * Val == poison, for any Val. In particular, this changes
existing intentional and documented behavior in these two cases:
a. Val is 0
b. Val is 2^k * N
2. poison << Val == poison, for any Val
3. getelementptr is poison if any input is poison
I think all of these are justified (and are axiomatically true in the
new poison / undef model):
1a: we need poison * 0 to be poison to allow transforms like these:
A * (B + C) ==> A * B + A * C
If poison * 0 were 0 then the above transform could not be allowed
since e.g. we could have A = poison, B = 1, C = -1, making the LHS
poison * (1 + -1) = poison * 0 = 0
and the RHS
poison * 1 + poison * -1 = poison + poison = poison
1b: we need e.g. poison * 4 to be poison since we want to allow
A * 4 ==> A + A + A + A
If poison * 4 were a value with all of their bits poison except the
last four; then we'd not be able to do this transform since then if A
were poison the LHS would only be "partially" poison while the RHS
would be "full" poison.
2: Same reasoning as (1b), we'd like have the following kinds
transforms be legal:
A << 1 ==> A + A
Reviewers: majnemer, efriedma
Subscribers: mcrosier, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D30185
llvm-svn: 295809
A program may contain llvm.assume info that disagrees with other analysis.
This may be caused by UB in the program, so we must not crash because of that.
As noted in the code comments:
https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=31809
...we can do better, but this at least avoids the assert/crash in the bug report.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D29395
llvm-svn: 293773
Summary:
CannotBeOrderedLessThanZero(powi(x, exp)) returns true if
CannotBeOrderedLessThanZero(x). But powi(-0, exp) is negative if exp is
odd, so we actually want to return SignBitMustBeZero(x).
Except that also isn't right, because we want to return true if x is
NaN, even if x has a negative sign bit.
What we really need in order to fix this is a consistent approach in
this function to handling the sign bit of NaNs. Without this it's very
difficult to say what the correct behavior here is.
Reviewers: hfinkel, efriedma, sanjoy
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D28927
llvm-svn: 293243
Summary:
Previously we assumed that the result of sqrt(x) always had 0 as its
sign bit. But sqrt(-0) == -0.
Reviewers: hfinkel, efriedma, sanjoy
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D28928
llvm-svn: 293115
Floating point intrinsics in LLVM are generally not speculatively
executed, since most of them are defined to behave the same as libm
functions, which set errno.
However, the @llvm.powi.* intrinsics do not correspond to any libm
function, and lacks any defined error handling semantics in LangRef.
It most certainly does not alter errno.
llvm-svn: 293041
Summary:
The LibFunc::Func enum holds enumerators named for libc functions.
Unfortunately, there are real situations, including libc implementations, where
function names are actually macros (musl uses "#define fopen64 fopen", for
example; any other transitively visible macro would have similar effects).
Strictly speaking, a conforming C++ Standard Library should provide any such
macros as functions instead (via <cstdio>). However, there are some "library"
functions which are not part of the standard, and thus not subject to this
rule (fopen64, for example). So, in order to be both portable and consistent,
the enum should not use the bare function names.
The old enum naming used a namespace LibFunc and an enum Func, with bare
enumerators. This patch changes LibFunc to be an enum with enumerators prefixed
with "LibFFunc_". (Unfortunately, a scoped enum is not sufficient to override
macros.)
There are additional changes required in clang.
Reviewers: rsmith
Subscribers: mehdi_amini, mzolotukhin, nemanjai, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D28476
llvm-svn: 292848
This is similar to what the caller (matchSelectPattern()) does. In all
cases where we succeed in matching a min/max pattern, the values in
that pattern will be the values of the 'select', so hoist that and
remove a bunch of duplicated code.
llvm-svn: 292725
Also, add the corresponding match to the AssumptionCache's 'Affected Values' list.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D28485
llvm-svn: 292239
Here's my second try at making @llvm.assume processing more efficient. My
previous attempt, which leveraged operand bundles, r289755, didn't end up
working: it did make assume processing more efficient but eliminating the
assumption cache made ephemeral value computation too expensive. This is a
more-targeted change. We'll keep the assumption cache, but extend it to keep a
map of affected values (i.e. values about which an assumption might provide
some information) to the corresponding assumption intrinsics. This allows
ValueTracking and LVI to find assumptions relevant to the value being queried
without scanning all assumptions in the function. The fact that ValueTracking
started doing O(number of assumptions in the function) work, for every
known-bits query, has become prohibitively expensive in some cases.
As discussed during the review, this is a pragmatic fix that, longer term, will
likely be replaced by a more-principled solution (perhaps based on an extended
SSA form).
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D28459
llvm-svn: 291671
I'm not sure if this was intentional, but today
isGuaranteedToTransferExecutionToSuccessor returns true for readonly and
argmemonly calls that may throw. This commit changes the function to
not implicitly infer nounwind this way.
Even if we eventually specify readonly calls as not throwing,
isGuaranteedToTransferExecutionToSuccessor is not the best place to
infer that. We should instead teach FunctionAttrs or some other such
pass to tag readonly functions / calls as nounwind instead.
llvm-svn: 290794
I don't think this hole is currently exposed, but I crashed regression tests for
jump-threading and loop-vectorize after I added calls to isKnownNonNullAt() in
InstSimplify as part of trying to solve PR28430:
https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=28430
That's because they call into value tracking with a context instruction, but no
other parts of the query structure filled in.
For more background, see the discussion in:
https://reviews.llvm.org/D27855
llvm-svn: 290786
After r289755, the AssumptionCache is no longer needed. Variables affected by
assumptions are now found by using the new operand-bundle-based scheme. This
new scheme is more computationally efficient, and also we need much less
code...
llvm-svn: 289756
There was an efficiency problem with how we processed @llvm.assume in
ValueTracking (and other places). The AssumptionCache tracked all of the
assumptions in a given function. In order to find assumptions relevant to
computing known bits, etc. we searched every assumption in the function. For
ValueTracking, that means that we did O(#assumes * #values) work in InstCombine
and other passes (with a constant factor that can be quite large because we'd
repeat this search at every level of recursion of the analysis).
Several of us discussed this situation at the last developers' meeting, and
this implements the discussed solution: Make the values that an assume might
affect operands of the assume itself. To avoid exposing this detail to
frontends and passes that need not worry about it, I've used the new
operand-bundle feature to add these extra call "operands" in a way that does
not affect the intrinsic's signature. I think this solution is relatively
clean. InstCombine adds these extra operands based on what ValueTracking, LVI,
etc. will need and then those passes need only search the users of the values
under consideration. This should fix the computational-complexity problem.
At this point, no passes depend on the AssumptionCache, and so I'll remove
that as a follow-up change.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D27259
llvm-svn: 289755
Summary:
Attaching !absolute_symbol to a global variable does two things:
1) Marks it as an absolute symbol reference.
2) Specifies the value range of that symbol's address.
Teach the X86 backend to allow absolute symbols to appear in place of
immediates by extending the relocImm and mov64imm32 matchers. Start using
relocImm in more places where it is legal.
As previously proposed on llvm-dev:
http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2016-October/105800.html
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D25878
llvm-svn: 289087
Instead, expose whether the current type is an array or a struct, if an array
what the upper bound is, and if a struct the struct type itself. This is
in preparation for a later change which will make PointerType derive from
Type rather than SequentialType.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D26594
llvm-svn: 288458
Craig Topper