Reapply r223347, with a fix to not crash on uninserted instructions (or more
precisely, instructions in uninserted blocks). bugpoint was able to reduce the
test case somewhat, but it is still somewhat large (and relies on setting
things up to be simplified during inlining), so I've not included it here.
Nevertheless, it is clear what is going on and why.
Original commit message:
Restrict somewhat the memory-allocation pointer cmp opt from r223093
Based on review comments from Richard Smith, restrict this optimization from
applying to globals that might resolve lazily to other dynamically-loaded
modules, and also from dynamic allocas (which might be transformed into malloc
calls). In short, take extra care that the compared-to pointer is really
simultaneously live with the memory allocation.
llvm-svn: 223371
Based on review comments from Richard Smith, restrict this optimization from
applying to globals that might resolve lazily to other dynamically-loaded
modules, and also from dynamic allocas (which might be transformed into malloc
calls). In short, take extra care that the compared-to pointer is really
simultaneously live with the memory allocation.
llvm-svn: 223347
System memory allocation functions, which are identified at the IR level by the
noalias attribute on the return value, must return a pointer into a memory region
disjoint from any other memory accessible to the caller. We can use this
property to simplify pointer comparisons between allocated memory and local
stack addresses and the addresses of global variables. Neither the stack nor
global variables can overlap with the region used by the memory allocator.
Fixes PR21556.
llvm-svn: 223093
This restores our ability to optimize:
(X & C) ? X & ~C : X into X & ~C
(X & C) ? X : X & ~C into X
(X & C) ? X | C : X into X
(X & C) ? X : X | C into X | C
llvm-svn: 222868
This handles cases where we are comparing a masked value against itself.
The analysis could be further improved by making it recursive but such
expense is not currently justified.
llvm-svn: 222716
This is to be consistent with StringSet and ultimately with the standard
library's associative container insert function.
This lead to updating SmallSet::insert to return pair<iterator, bool>,
and then to update SmallPtrSet::insert to return pair<iterator, bool>,
and then to update all the existing users of those functions...
llvm-svn: 222334
A few things:
- computeKnownBits is relatively expensive, let's delay its use as long
as we can.
- Don't create two APInt values just to run computeKnownBits on a
ConstantInt, we already know the exact value!
- Avoid creating a temporary APInt value in order to calculate unary
negation.
llvm-svn: 222092
Exact shifts may not shift out any non-zero bits. Use computeKnownBits
to determine when this occurs and just return the left hand side.
This fixes PR21477.
llvm-svn: 221325
consider:
C1 = INT_MIN
C2 = -1
C1 * C2 overflows without a doubt but consider the following:
%x = i32 INT_MIN
This means that (%X /s C1) is 1 and (%X /s C1) /s C2 is -1.
N. B. Move the unsigned version of this transform to InstSimplify, it
doesn't create any new instructions.
This fixes PR21243.
llvm-svn: 219567
Some ICmpInsts when anded/ored with another ICmpInst trivially reduces
to true or false depending on whether or not all integers or no integers
satisfy the intersected/unioned range.
This sort of trivial looking code can come about when InstCombine
performs a range reduction-type operation on sdiv and the like.
This fixes PR20916.
llvm-svn: 217750
This change, which allows @llvm.assume to be used from within computeKnownBits
(and other associated functions in ValueTracking), adds some (optional)
parameters to computeKnownBits and friends. These functions now (optionally)
take a "context" instruction pointer, an AssumptionTracker pointer, and also a
DomTree pointer, and most of the changes are just to pass this new information
when it is easily available from InstSimplify, InstCombine, etc.
As explained below, the significant conceptual change is that known properties
of a value might depend on the control-flow location of the use (because we
care that the @llvm.assume dominates the use because assumptions have
control-flow dependencies). This means that, when we ask if bits are known in a
value, we might get different answers for different uses.
The significant changes are all in ValueTracking. Two main changes: First, as
with the rest of the code, new parameters need to be passed around. To make
this easier, I grouped them into a structure, and I made internal static
versions of the relevant functions that take this structure as a parameter. The
new code does as you might expect, it looks for @llvm.assume calls that make
use of the value we're trying to learn something about (often indirectly),
attempts to pattern match that expression, and uses the result if successful.
By making use of the AssumptionTracker, the process of finding @llvm.assume
calls is not expensive.
Part of the structure being passed around inside ValueTracking is a set of
already-considered @llvm.assume calls. This is to prevent a query using, for
example, the assume(a == b), to recurse on itself. The context and DT params
are used to find applicable assumptions. An assumption needs to dominate the
context instruction, or come after it deterministically. In this latter case we
only handle the specific case where both the assumption and the context
instruction are in the same block, and we need to exclude assumptions from
being used to simplify their own ephemeral values (those which contribute only
to the assumption) because otherwise the assumption would prove its feeding
comparison trivial and would be removed.
This commit adds the plumbing and the logic for a simple masked-bit propagation
(just enough to write a regression test). Future commits add more patterns
(and, correspondingly, more regression tests).
llvm-svn: 217342
Several combines involving icmp (shl C2, %X) C1 can be simplified
without introducing any new instructions. Move them to InstSimplify;
while we are at it, make them more powerful.
llvm-svn: 216642
It's incorrect to perform this simplification if the types differ.
A bitcast would need to be inserted for this to work.
This fixes PR20771.
llvm-svn: 216597
'shl nuw CI, x' produces [CI, CI << CLZ(CI)]
'shl nsw CI, x' produces [CI << CLO(CI)-1, CI] if CI is negative
'shl nsw CI, x' produces [CI, CI << CLZ(CI)-1] if CI is non-negative
llvm-svn: 216570
consider:
long long *f(long long *b, long long *e) {
return b + (e - b);
}
we would lower this to something like:
define i64* @f(i64* %b, i64* %e) {
%1 = ptrtoint i64* %e to i64
%2 = ptrtoint i64* %b to i64
%3 = sub i64 %1, %2
%4 = ashr exact i64 %3, 3
%5 = getelementptr inbounds i64* %b, i64 %4
ret i64* %5
}
This should fold away to just 'e'.
N.B. This adds m_SpecificInt as a convenient way to match against a
particular 64-bit integer when using LLVM's match interface.
llvm-svn: 216439
If the NUW bit is set for 0 - Y, we know that all values for Y other
than 0 would produce a poison value. This allows us to replace (0 - Y)
with 0 in the expression (X - (0 - Y)) which will ultimately leave us
with X.
This partially fixes PR20189.
llvm-svn: 214384
Earlier when the code was in InstCombine, we were calling the version of ComputeNumSignBits in InstCombine.h
that automatically added the DataLayout* before calling into ValueTracking.
When the code moved to InstSimplify, we are calling into ValueTracking directly without passing in the DataLayout*.
This patch rectifies the same by passing DataLayout in ComputeNumSignBits.
llvm-svn: 213295
Refactor code, no functionality change, test case moved from instcombine to instsimplify.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D4102
llvm-svn: 213231
Determining the bounds of x/ -1 would start off with us dividing it by
INT_MIN. Suffice to say, this would not work very well.
Instead, handle it upfront by checking for -1 and mapping it to the
range: [INT_MIN + 1, INT_MAX. This means that the result of our
division can be any value other than INT_MIN.
llvm-svn: 212981
Summary:
When calculating the upper bound of X / -8589934592, we would perform
the following calculation: Floor[INT_MAX / 8589934592]
However, flooring the result would make us wrongly come to the
conclusion that 1073741824 was not in the set of possible values.
Instead, use the ceiling of the result.
Reviewers: nicholas
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D4502
llvm-svn: 212976
When INT_MIN is the numerator in a sdiv, we would not properly handle
overflow when calculating the bounds of possible values; abs(INT_MIN) is
not a meaningful number.
Instead, check and handle INT_MIN by reasoning that the largest value is
INT_MIN/-2 and the smallest value is INT_MIN.
This fixes PR20199.
llvm-svn: 212307
Summary:
Analyze the range of values produced by ashr/lshr cst, %V when it is
being used in an icmp.
Reviewers: nicholas
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D3774
llvm-svn: 209000
Summary:
The dividend in an sdiv tells us the largest and smallest possible
results. Use this fact to optimize comparisons against an sdiv with a
constant dividend.
Reviewers: nicholas
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D3795
llvm-svn: 208999
definition below all the header #include lines, lib/Analysis/...
edition.
This one has a bit extra as there were *other* #define's before #include
lines in addition to DEBUG_TYPE. I've sunk all of them as a block.
llvm-svn: 206843
This requires a number of steps.
1) Move value_use_iterator into the Value class as an implementation
detail
2) Change it to actually be a *Use* iterator rather than a *User*
iterator.
3) Add an adaptor which is a User iterator that always looks through the
Use to the User.
4) Wrap these in Value::use_iterator and Value::user_iterator typedefs.
5) Add the range adaptors as Value::uses() and Value::users().
6) Update *all* of the callers to correctly distinguish between whether
they wanted a use_iterator (and to explicitly dig out the User when
needed), or a user_iterator which makes the Use itself totally
opaque.
Because #6 requires churning essentially everything that walked the
Use-Def chains, I went ahead and added all of the range adaptors and
switched them to range-based loops where appropriate. Also because the
renaming requires at least churning every line of code, it didn't make
any sense to split these up into multiple commits -- all of which would
touch all of the same lies of code.
The result is still not quite optimal. The Value::use_iterator is a nice
regular iterator, but Value::user_iterator is an iterator over User*s
rather than over the User objects themselves. As a consequence, it fits
a bit awkwardly into the range-based world and it has the weird
extra-dereferencing 'operator->' that so many of our iterators have.
I think this could be fixed by providing something which transforms
a range of T&s into a range of T*s, but that *can* be separated into
another patch, and it isn't yet 100% clear whether this is the right
move.
However, this change gets us most of the benefit and cleans up
a substantial amount of code around Use and User. =]
llvm-svn: 203364
a bit surprising, as the class is almost entirely abstracted away from
any particular IR, however it encodes the comparsion predicates which
mutate ranges as ICmp predicate codes. This is reasonable as they're
used for both instructions and constants. Thus, it belongs in the IR
library with instructions and constants.
llvm-svn: 202838
Move the test for this class into the IR unittests as well.
This uncovers that ValueMap too is in the IR library. Ironically, the
unittest for ValueMap is useless in the Support library (honestly, so
was the ValueHandle test) and so it already lives in the IR unittests.
Mmmm, tasty layering.
llvm-svn: 202821
name might indicate, it is an iterator over the types in an instruction
in the IR.... You see where this is going.
Another step of modularizing the support library.
llvm-svn: 202815
I am really sorry for the noise, but the current state where some parts of the
code use TD (from the old name: TargetData) and other parts use DL makes it
hard to write a patch that changes where those variables come from and how
they are passed along.
llvm-svn: 201827
David Majnemer