Because we do not constant fold multiplications in SimplifyFMAMul,
we match 1.0 and 0.0 for both operands, as multiplying by them
is guaranteed to produce an exact result (if it is allowed to do so).
Note that it is not enough to just swap the operands to ensure a
constant is on the RHS, as we want to also cover the case with
2 constants.
Reviewers: lebedev.ri, spatel, reames, scanon
Reviewed By: lebedev.ri, reames
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D67553
llvm-svn: 372915
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/KtL
This also shows that the fold added in D67412 / r372257
was too specific, and the new fold allows those test cases
to be handled more generically, therefore i delete now-dead code.
This is yet again motivated by
D67122 "[UBSan][clang][compiler-rt] Applying non-zero offset to nullptr is undefined behaviour"
llvm-svn: 372912
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/KtL
This should go to InstCombiner::foldICmpBinO(), next to
"Convert sub-with-unsigned-overflow comparisons into a comparison of args."
llvm-svn: 372911
As @reames pointed out post-commit, rL371518 adds additional rounding
in some cases, when doing constant folding of the multiplication.
This breaks a guarantee llvm.fma makes and must be avoided.
This patch reapplies rL371518, but splits off the simplifications not
requiring rounding from SimplifFMulInst as SimplifyFMAFMul.
Reviewers: spatel, lebedev.ri, reames, scanon
Reviewed By: reames
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D67434
llvm-svn: 372899
If we generate the gc.relocate, and then later prove two arguments to the statepoint are equivalent, we should canonicalize the gc.relocate to the form we would have produced if this had been known before rewriting.
llvm-svn: 372771
Summary:
This is again motivated by D67122 sanitizer check enhancement.
That patch seemingly worsens `-fsanitize=pointer-overflow`
overhead from 25% to 50%, which strongly implies missing folds.
For
```
#include <cassert>
char* test(char& base, signed long offset) {
__builtin_assume(offset < 0);
return &base + offset;
}
```
We produce
https://godbolt.org/z/r40U47
and again those two icmp's can be merged:
```
Name: 0
Pre: C != 0
%adjusted = add i8 %base, C
%not_null = icmp ne i8 %adjusted, 0
%no_underflow = icmp ult i8 %adjusted, %base
%r = and i1 %not_null, %no_underflow
=>
%neg_offset = sub i8 0, C
%r = icmp ugt i8 %base, %neg_offset
```
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/ALaphttps://rise4fun.com/Alive/slnN
There are 3 other variants of this pattern,
i believe they all will go into InstSimplify.
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=43259
Reviewers: spatel, xbolva00, nikic
Reviewed By: spatel
Subscribers: efriedma, hiraditya, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D67849
llvm-svn: 372768
Summary:
This is again motivated by D67122 sanitizer check enhancement.
That patch seemingly worsens `-fsanitize=pointer-overflow`
overhead from 25% to 50%, which strongly implies missing folds.
This pattern isn't exactly what we get there
(strict vs. non-strict predicate), but this pattern does not
require known-bits analysis, so it is best to handle it first.
```
Name: 0
%adjusted = add i8 %base, %offset
%not_null = icmp ne i8 %adjusted, 0
%no_underflow = icmp ule i8 %adjusted, %base
%r = and i1 %not_null, %no_underflow
=>
%neg_offset = sub i8 0, %offset
%r = icmp ugt i8 %base, %neg_offset
```
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/knp
There are 3 other variants of this pattern,
they all will go into InstSimplify:
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/bIDZhttps://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=43259
Reviewers: spatel, xbolva00, nikic
Reviewed By: spatel
Subscribers: hiraditya, majnemer, vsk, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D67846
llvm-svn: 372767
Summary:
Fold
or(ashr(subNSW(Y, X), ScalarSizeInBits(Y)-1), X)
into
X s> Y ? -1 : X
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/d8Ab
clamp255 is a common operator in image processing, can be implemented
in a shifty way "(255 - X) >> 31 | X & 255". Fold shift into select
enables more optimization, e.g., vmin generation for ARM target.
Reviewers: lebedev.ri, efriedma, spatel, kparzysz, bcahoon
Reviewed By: lebedev.ri
Subscribers: kristof.beyls, hiraditya, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D67800
llvm-svn: 372678
Summary:
Clamp negative to zero and clamp positive to allOnes are common
operation in image saturation.
Add tests for shifty implementation of clamping, as prepare work for
folding:
and(ashr(subNSW(Y, X), ScalarSizeInBits(Y)-1), X) --> X s> 0 ? X : 0;
or(ashr(subNSW(Y, X), ScalarSizeInBits(Y)-1), X) --> X s> Y ? allOnes : X.
Reviewers: lebedev.ri, efriedma, spatel, kparzysz, bcahoon
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D67798
llvm-svn: 372671
"Implementations are free to malloc() a buffer containing either (size + 1) bytes or (strnlen(s, size) + 1) bytes. Applications should not assume that strndup() will allocate (size + 1) bytes when strlen(s) is smaller than size."
llvm-svn: 372647
Summary:
Motivation:
- If we can fold it to strdup, we should (strndup does more things than strdup).
- Annotation mechanism. (Works for strdup well).
strdup and strndup are part of C 20 (currently posix fns), so we should optimize them.
Reviewers: efriedma, jdoerfert
Reviewed By: jdoerfert
Subscribers: lebedev.ri, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D67679
llvm-svn: 372636
Summary:
If we have a pattern `(x & (-1 >> maskNbits)) << shiftNbits`,
we already know (have a fold) that will drop the `& (-1 >> maskNbits)`
mask iff `(shiftNbits-maskNbits) s>= 0` (i.e. `shiftNbits u>= maskNbits`).
So even if `(shiftNbits-maskNbits) s< 0`, we can still
fold, we will just need to apply a **constant** mask afterwards:
```
Name: c, normal+mask
%t0 = lshr i32 -1, C1
%t1 = and i32 %t0, %x
%r = shl i32 %t1, C2
=>
%n0 = shl i32 %x, C2
%n1 = i32 ((-(C2-C1))+32)
%n2 = zext i32 %n1 to i64
%n3 = lshr i64 -1, %n2
%n4 = trunc i64 %n3 to i32
%r = and i32 %n0, %n4
```
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/gslRa
Naturally, old `%masked` will have to be one-use.
This is not valid for pattern f - where "masking" is done via `ashr`.
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=42563
Reviewers: spatel, nikic, xbolva00
Reviewed By: spatel
Subscribers: hiraditya, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D67725
llvm-svn: 372630
Summary:
And this is **finally** the interesting part of that fold!
If we have a pattern `(x & (~(-1 << maskNbits))) << shiftNbits`,
we already know (have a fold) that will drop the `& (~(-1 << maskNbits))`
mask iff `(maskNbits+shiftNbits) u>= bitwidth(x)`.
But that is actually ignorant, there's more general fold here:
In this pattern, `(maskNbits+shiftNbits)` actually correlates
with the number of low bits that will remain in the final value.
So even if `(maskNbits+shiftNbits) u< bitwidth(x)`, we can still
fold, we will just need to apply a **constant** mask afterwards:
```
Name: a, normal+mask
%onebit = shl i32 -1, C1
%mask = xor i32 %onebit, -1
%masked = and i32 %mask, %x
%r = shl i32 %masked, C2
=>
%n0 = shl i32 %x, C2
%n1 = add i32 C1, C2
%n2 = zext i32 %n1 to i64
%n3 = shl i64 -1, %n2
%n4 = xor i64 %n3, -1
%n5 = trunc i64 %n4 to i32
%r = and i32 %n0, %n5
```
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/F5R
Naturally, old `%masked` will have to be one-use.
Similar fold exists for patterns c,d,e, will post patch later.
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=42563
Reviewers: spatel, nikic, xbolva00
Reviewed By: spatel
Subscribers: hiraditya, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D67677
llvm-svn: 372629
This has the potential to uncover missed analysis/folds as shown in the
min/max code comment/test, but fewer restrictions on icmp folds should
be better in general to solve cases like:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=43310
llvm-svn: 372510
Summary:
This is again motivated by D67122 sanitizer check enhancement.
That patch seemingly worsens `-fsanitize=pointer-overflow`
overhead from 25% to 50%, which strongly implies missing folds.
In this particular case, given
```
char* test(char& base, unsigned long offset) {
return &base - offset;
}
```
it will end up producing something like
https://godbolt.org/z/luGEju
which after optimizations reduces down to roughly
```
declare void @use64(i64)
define i1 @test(i8* dereferenceable(1) %base, i64 %offset) {
%base_int = ptrtoint i8* %base to i64
%adjusted = sub i64 %base_int, %offset
call void @use64(i64 %adjusted)
%not_null = icmp ne i64 %adjusted, 0
%no_underflow = icmp ule i64 %adjusted, %base_int
%no_underflow_and_not_null = and i1 %not_null, %no_underflow
ret i1 %no_underflow_and_not_null
}
```
Without D67122 there was no `%not_null`,
and in this particular case we can "get rid of it", by merging two checks:
Here we are checking: `Base u>= Offset && (Base u- Offset) != 0`, but that is simply `Base u> Offset`
Alive proofs:
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/QOs
The `@llvm.usub.with.overflow` pattern itself is not handled here
because this is the main pattern, that we currently consider canonical.
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=43251
Reviewers: spatel, nikic, xbolva00, majnemer
Reviewed By: xbolva00, majnemer
Subscribers: vsk, majnemer, xbolva00, hiraditya, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D67356
llvm-svn: 372341
Summary:
I don't have a direct motivational case for this,
but it would be good to have this for completeness/symmetry.
This pattern is basically the motivational pattern from
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=43251
but with different predicate that requires that the offset is non-zero.
The completeness bit comes from the fact that a similar pattern (offset != zero)
will be needed for https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=43259,
so it'd seem to be good to not overlook very similar patterns..
Proofs: https://rise4fun.com/Alive/21b
Also, there is something odd with `isKnownNonZero()`, if the non-zero
knowledge was specified as an assumption, it didn't pick it up (PR43267)
With this, i see no other missing folds for
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=43251
Reviewers: spatel, nikic, xbolva00
Reviewed By: spatel
Subscribers: hiraditya, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D67412
llvm-svn: 372257
For patterns c/d/e we too can deal with the pattern even if we can't
just drop the mask, we can just apply it afterwars:
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/gslRa
llvm-svn: 372244
While we already fold that pattern if the sum of shift amounts is not
smaller than bitwidth, there's painfully obvious generalization:
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/F5R
I.e. the "sub of shift amounts" tells us how many bits will be left
in the output. If it's less than bitwidth, we simply need to
apply a mask, which is constant.
llvm-svn: 372170
Related folds were added in:
rL125734
...the code comment about register pressure is discussed in
more detail in:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2698
But 10 years later, perf testing bzip2 with this change now
shows a slight (0.2% average) improvement on Haswell although
that's probably within test noise.
Given that this is IR canonicalization, we shouldn't be worried
about register pressure though; the backend should be able to
adjust for that as needed.
This is part of solving PR43310 the theoretically right way:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=43310
...ie, if we don't cripple basic transforms, then we won't
need to add special-case code to detect larger patterns.
rL371940 and rL371981 are related patches in this series.
llvm-svn: 372007
This fold and several others were added in:
rL125734 <https://reviews.llvm.org/rL125734>
...with no explanation for the one-use checks other than the code
comments about register pressure.
Given that this is IR canonicalization, we shouldn't be worried
about register pressure though; the backend should be able to
adjust for that as needed.
This is part of solving PR43310 the theoretically right way:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=43310
...ie, if we don't cripple basic transforms, then we won't
need to add special-case code to detect larger patterns.
rL371940 is a related patch in this series.
llvm-svn: 371981
This fold and several others were added in:
rL125734
...with no explanation for the one-use checks other than the code
comments about register pressure.
Given that this is IR canonicalization, we shouldn't be worried
about register pressure though; the backend should be able to
adjust for that as needed.
There are similar checks as noted with the TODO comments. I'm
hoping to remove those restrictions too, but if any of these
does cause a regression, it should be easier to correct by making
small, individual commits.
This is part of solving PR43310 the theoretically right way:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=43310
...ie, if we don't cripple basic transforms, then we won't
need to add special-case code to detect larger patterns.
llvm-svn: 371940
Expanding the folding of `nearbyint()`, `rint()` and `trunc()` to library
functions, in addition to the current support for intrinsics.
Differential revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D67468
llvm-svn: 371774
(srem X, pow2C) sgt/slt 0 can be reduced using bit hacks by masking
off the sign bit and the module (low) bits:
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/jSO
A '2' divisor allows slightly more folding:
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/tDBM
Any chance to remove an 'srem' use is probably worthwhile, but this is limited
to the one-use improvement case because doing more may expose other missing
folds. That means it does nothing for PR21929 yet:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=21929
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D67334
llvm-svn: 371610
Configure TLI to say that r600/amdgpu does not have any library
functions, such that InstCombine does not do anything like turn sin/cos
into the library function @tan with sufficient fast math flags.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D67406
Change-Id: I02f907d3e64832117ea9800e9f9285282856e5df
llvm-svn: 371592
TryToSinkInstruction() has a bug: While updating debug info for
sunk instruction, it could clone dbg.declare intrinsic.
That is wrong. There could be only one dbg.declare.
The fix is to not clone dbg.declare intrinsic and to update
it`s arguments, to not to point to sunk instruction.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D67217
llvm-svn: 371587
I only want to ensure that %offset is non-zero there,
it doesn't matter how that info is conveyed.
As filed in PR43267, the assumption way does not work.
llvm-svn: 371550
Roman Lebedev