Commit Graph

477 Commits

Author SHA1 Message Date
Sanjay Patel 9b07347033 [InstSimplify] fold fsub+fadd with common operand
llvm-svn: 339176
2018-08-07 20:32:55 +00:00
Sanjay Patel 4364d604c2 [InstSimplify] fold fadd+fsub with common operand
llvm-svn: 339174
2018-08-07 20:23:49 +00:00
Sanjay Patel f7a8fb2dee [InstSimplify] fold fsub+fsub with common operand
llvm-svn: 339171
2018-08-07 20:14:27 +00:00
Sanjay Patel 50976393ed [InstSimplify] add tests for fadd/fsub; NFC
Instcombine gets some, but not all, of these cases via
it's internal reassociation transforms. It fails in
all cases with vector types.

llvm-svn: 339168
2018-08-07 19:49:13 +00:00
Sanjay Patel 948ff87d7d [InstSimplify] move minnum/maxnum with common op fold from instcombine
llvm-svn: 339144
2018-08-07 14:36:27 +00:00
Sanjay Patel b06d283909 [InstSimplify] add tests for minnum/maxnum with shared op; NFC
llvm-svn: 339142
2018-08-07 14:13:40 +00:00
Sanjay Patel b802d18df7 [InstSimplify] move misplaced minnum/maxnum tests; NFC
llvm-svn: 339141
2018-08-07 14:12:08 +00:00
Matt Arsenault 56b31d8d75 ValueTracking: Handle canonicalize in CannotBeNegativeZero
Also fix apparently missing test coverage for any of the
handling here.

llvm-svn: 339023
2018-08-06 15:16:26 +00:00
Hiroshi Inoue 73f8b255b6 [InstSimplify] fold extracting from std::pair (2/2)
This is the second patch of the series which intends to enable jump threading for an inlined method whose return type is std::pair<int, bool> or std::pair<bool, int>. 
The first patch is https://reviews.llvm.org/rL338485.

This patch handles code sequences that merges two values using `shl` and `or`, then extracts one value using `and`.

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D49981

llvm-svn: 338817
2018-08-03 05:39:48 +00:00
Sanjay Patel 3f6e9a71f7 [InstSimplify] move minnum/maxnum with undef fold from instcombine
llvm-svn: 338719
2018-08-02 14:33:40 +00:00
Sanjay Patel f9a0d593e9 [ValueTracking] fix maxnum miscompile for cannotBeOrderedLessThanZero (PR37776)
This adds the NAN checks suggested in PR37776:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=37776

If both operands to maxnum are NAN, that should get constant folded, so we don't 
have to handle that case. This is the same assumption as other FP ops in this
function. Returning 'false' is always conservatively correct.

Copying from the bug report:

Currently, we have this for "when is cannotBeOrderedLessThanZero 
(mustBePositiveOrNaN) true for maxnum":
               L
        -------------------
        | Pos | Neg | NaN |
   ------------------------
   |Pos |  x  |  x  |  x  |
   ------------------------
 R |Neg |  x  |     |  x  |
   ------------------------
   |NaN |  x  |  x  |  x  |
   ------------------------


The cases with (Neg & NaN) are wrong. We should have:

                L
        -------------------
        | Pos | Neg | NaN |
   ------------------------
   |Pos |  x  |  x  |  x  |
   ------------------------
 R |Neg |  x  |     |     |
   ------------------------
   |NaN |  x  |     |  x  |
   ------------------------

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D50081

llvm-svn: 338716
2018-08-02 13:46:20 +00:00
Sanjay Patel 28c7e41c09 [InstSimplify] move minnum/maxnum with same arg fold from instcombine
llvm-svn: 338652
2018-08-01 23:05:55 +00:00
Hiroshi Inoue 02f79eae06 [InstSimplify] fold extracting from std::pair (1/2)
This patch intends to enable jump threading when a method whose return type is std::pair<int, bool> or std::pair<bool, int> is inlined.
For example, jump threading does not happen for the if statement in func.

std::pair<int, bool> callee(int v) {
  int a = dummy(v);
  if (a) return std::make_pair(dummy(v), true);
  else return std::make_pair(v, v < 0);
}

int func(int v) {
  std::pair<int, bool> rc = callee(v);
  if (rc.second) {
    // do something
  }

SROA executed before the method inlining replaces std::pair by i64 without splitting in both callee and func since at this point no access to the individual fields is seen to SROA.
After inlining, jump threading fails to identify that the incoming value is a constant due to additional instructions (like or, and, trunc).

This series of patch add patterns in InstructionSimplify to fold extraction of members of std::pair. To help jump threading, actually we need to optimize the code sequence spanning multiple BBs.
These patches does not handle phi by itself, but these additional patterns help NewGVN pass, which calls instsimplify to check opportunities for simplifying instructions over phi, apply phi-of-ops optimization to result in successful jump threading. 
SimplifyDemandedBits in InstCombine, can do more general optimization but this patch aims to provide opportunities for other optimizers by supporting a simple but common case in InstSimplify.

This first patch in the series handles code sequences that merges two values using shl and or and then extracts one value using lshr.

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D48828

llvm-svn: 338485
2018-08-01 04:40:32 +00:00
David Bolvansky 16d8a69b90 [InstSimplify] Fold another Select with And/Or pattern
Summary: Proof: https://rise4fun.com/Alive/L5J

Reviewers: lebedev.ri, spatel

Reviewed By: spatel

Subscribers: llvm-commits

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D49975

llvm-svn: 338383
2018-07-31 14:17:15 +00:00
Hiroshi Inoue 2f6769be60 [InstSimplify] tests for D48828, D49981: fold extraction from std::pair
Minor touch up in the previous comment.

llvm-svn: 338351
2018-07-31 05:29:20 +00:00
Hiroshi Inoue 5427d3efc2 [InstSimplify] tests for D48828, D49981: fold extraction from std::pair
Updated unit tests for D48828 and D49981.

llvm-svn: 338350
2018-07-31 05:10:36 +00:00
David Bolvansky 76e95865f3 [InstSimplify] [NFC] Tests for Select with AND/OR fold
llvm-svn: 338285
2018-07-30 18:22:18 +00:00
Sanjay Patel 54421ce918 [InstSimplify] fold funnel shifts with 0-shift amount
llvm-svn: 338218
2018-07-29 16:36:38 +00:00
Sanjay Patel 46af5835af [InstSimplify] add tests for funnel shift intrinsics; NFC
llvm-svn: 338217
2018-07-29 16:27:17 +00:00
David Bolvansky 9800b710c2 [InstSimplify] Moved Select + AND/OR tests from InstCombine
Subscribers: llvm-commits

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D49957

llvm-svn: 338195
2018-07-28 13:52:45 +00:00
Hiroshi Inoue eeab694cea [InstSimplify] tests for D48828: fold extraction from std::pair
This commit includes unit tests for D48828, which enhances InstSimplify to enable jump threading with a method whose return type is std::pair<int, bool> or std::pair<bool, int>.
I am going to commit the actual transformation later.

llvm-svn: 338107
2018-07-27 07:21:02 +00:00
Chen Zheng 69bb064539 [InstrSimplify] fold sdiv if two operands are negated and non-overflow
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D49382

llvm-svn: 337642
2018-07-21 12:27:54 +00:00
Chen Zheng 0f609db61a [NFC][testcases] fold sdiv if two operands are negated and non-overflow
llvm-svn: 337549
2018-07-20 13:38:59 +00:00
Chen Zheng f801d0fea9 [InstSimplify] fold srem instruction if its two operands are negated.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D49423

llvm-svn: 337545
2018-07-20 13:00:47 +00:00
Chen Zheng 35395a6773 [NFC][testcases] more testcases for folding srem if its two operands are negatived.
llvm-svn: 337543
2018-07-20 12:53:45 +00:00
Chen Zheng fcfcf07104 [NFC][testcases] add testcases for folding srem whose operands are negatived.
Finish same optimization for add instruction in D49216 and sdiv instruction in 
D49382. This patch is for srem instruction.

llvm-svn: 337270
2018-07-17 12:31:54 +00:00
Chen Zheng c992cc4e97 [testcases] move testcases to right place - NFC
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D49409

llvm-svn: 337230
2018-07-17 01:04:41 +00:00
Sanjay Patel fae8ed0104 [InstSimplify] add fixme comment for PR37776; NFC
llvm-svn: 337129
2018-07-15 16:13:58 +00:00
Sanjay Patel 92d0c1c129 [InstSimplify] fold minnum/maxnum with NaN arg
This fold is repeated/misplaced in instcombine, but I'm
not sure if it's safe to remove that yet because some
other folds appear to be asserting that the transform
has occurred within instcombine itself.

This isn't the best fix for PR37776, but it probably
hides the bug with the given code example:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=37776

We have another test to demonstrate the more general bug.

llvm-svn: 337127
2018-07-15 14:52:16 +00:00
Sanjay Patel ef71b704c2 [InstSimplify] add tests for minnum/maxnum; NFC
This isn't the best fix for PR37776, but it probably
hides the bug with the given code example:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=37776

We have another test to demonstrate the more general
bug.

llvm-svn: 337126
2018-07-15 14:46:48 +00:00
Chen Zheng fdf13ef342 [InstSimplify] simplify add instruction if two operands are negative
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D49216

llvm-svn: 336881
2018-07-12 03:06:04 +00:00
Sanjay Patel 14eeb5a5c0 [InstSimplify] add/move tests for add folds; NFC
isKnownNegation() is currently proposed as part of D48754,
but it could be used to make InstSimplify stronger independently
of any abs() improvements.

llvm-svn: 336822
2018-07-11 16:52:18 +00:00
Manoj Gupta 77eeac3d9e llvm: Add support for "-fno-delete-null-pointer-checks"
Summary:
Support for this option is needed for building Linux kernel.
This is a very frequently requested feature by kernel developers.

More details : https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/4/4/601

GCC option description for -fdelete-null-pointer-checks:
This Assume that programs cannot safely dereference null pointers,
and that no code or data element resides at address zero.

-fno-delete-null-pointer-checks is the inverse of this implying that
null pointer dereferencing is not undefined.

This feature is implemented in LLVM IR in this CL as the function attribute
"null-pointer-is-valid"="true" in IR (Under review at D47894).
The CL updates several passes that assumed null pointer dereferencing is
undefined to not optimize when the "null-pointer-is-valid"="true"
attribute is present.

Reviewers: t.p.northover, efriedma, jyknight, chandlerc, rnk, srhines, void, george.burgess.iv

Reviewed By: efriedma, george.burgess.iv

Subscribers: eraman, haicheng, george.burgess.iv, drinkcat, theraven, reames, sanjoy, xbolva00, llvm-commits

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D47895

llvm-svn: 336613
2018-07-09 22:27:23 +00:00
Sanjay Patel ad0bfb844d [InstSimplify] fold shifts by sext bool
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/c3Y

llvm-svn: 335633
2018-06-26 17:31:38 +00:00
Sanjay Patel 3d1e4d6fa6 [InstSimplify] add tests for shifts by sext bool; NFC
llvm-svn: 335631
2018-06-26 17:15:07 +00:00
Sanjay Patel 2b7e31095d [InstSimplify] fold srem with sext bool divisor
llvm-svn: 335616
2018-06-26 15:32:54 +00:00
Sanjay Patel 0e0dbebeed [InstSimplify] add tests for srem with sext bool divisor; NFC
llvm-svn: 335609
2018-06-26 14:47:31 +00:00
Sanjay Patel 1e911fa746 [InstSimplify] fold div/rem of zexted bool
I was looking at an unrelated fold and noticed that
we don't have this simplification (because the other
fold would break existing tests).

Name: zext udiv
  %z = zext i1 %x to i32
  %r = udiv i32 %y, %z
=>
  %r = %y

Name: zext urem
  %z = zext i1 %x to i32
  %r = urem i32 %y, %z
=>
  %r = 0

Name: zext sdiv
  %z = zext i1 %x to i32
  %r = sdiv i32 %y, %z
=>
  %r = %y

Name: zext srem
  %z = zext i1 %x to i32
  %r = srem i32 %y, %z
=>
  %r = 0

https://rise4fun.com/Alive/LZ9

llvm-svn: 335512
2018-06-25 18:51:21 +00:00
Sanjay Patel a46bcbec58 [InstSimplify] add tests for div/rem with bool divisor; NFC
llvm-svn: 335509
2018-06-25 18:27:14 +00:00
Sanjay Patel 0c57de4c21 [InstSimplify] Fix missed optimization in simplifyUnsignedRangeCheck()
For both operands are unsigned, the following optimizations are valid, and missing:

   1. X > Y && X != 0 --> X > Y
   2. X > Y || X != 0 --> X != 0
   3. X <= Y || X != 0 --> true
   4. X <= Y || X == 0 --> X <= Y
   5. X > Y && X == 0 --> false

unsigned foo(unsigned x, unsigned y) { return x > y && x != 0; }
should fold to x > y, but I found we haven't done it right now.
besides, unsigned foo(unsigned x, unsigned y) { return x < y && y != 0; }
Has been folded to x < y, so there may be a bug.

Patch by: Li Jia He!

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D47922

llvm-svn: 335129
2018-06-20 14:22:49 +00:00
Sanjay Patel c1d2177f9d [InstSimplify] Add tests for missed optimizations in simplifyUnsignedRangeCheck (NFC)
These are the baseline tests for the functional change in D47922.

Patch by Li Jia He!

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D48000

llvm-svn: 335128
2018-06-20 14:03:13 +00:00
Roman Lebedev b060ce45ca [InstSimplify] add nuw %x, -1 -> -1 fold.
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/OA9

https://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
2018-06-08 15:44:47 +00:00
Roman Lebedev 188a619e56 [NFC][InstSimplify] Add tests for add nuw %x, -1 -> -1 fold.
%ret = add nuw i8 %x, C
From 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.

https://rise4fun.com/Alive/sldC
Was mentioned in D47428 review.

llvm-svn: 334236
2018-06-07 21:19:50 +00:00
Roman Lebedev fdd90f2fc6 [NFC][InstSimplify] One more negative test for shl nuw C, %x -> C fold.
Follow-up for rL334200, rL334206.

llvm-svn: 334235
2018-06-07 21:19:45 +00:00
Roman Lebedev 2683802ba0 [InstSimplify] shl nuw C, %x -> C iff signbit is set on C.
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/WMk
https://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
2018-06-07 20:03:45 +00:00
Roman Lebedev 86d376f516 [NFC][InstSimplify] Add more tests for shl nuw C, %x -> C fold.
Follow-up for rL334200.
For these, KnownBits will be needed.

llvm-svn: 334206
2018-06-07 16:18:26 +00:00
Roman Lebedev 847938925b [NFC][InstSimplify] Add tests for shl nuw C, %x -> C fold.
%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.

https://rise4fun.com/Alive/WMk
Was mentioned in D47428 review.

llvm-svn: 334200
2018-06-07 14:18:38 +00:00
Sanjay Patel 3ef8f858da [InstCombine] move misplaced test file and regenerate checks; NFC
llvm-svn: 333039
2018-05-22 23:15:56 +00:00
Sanjay Patel a003c728a5 [InstCombine] choose 1 form of abs and nabs as canonical
We already do this for min/max (see the blob above the diff), 
so we should do the same for abs/nabs.
A sign-bit check (<s 0) is used as a predicate for other IR 
transforms and it's likely the best for codegen.

This might solve the motivating cases for D47037 and D47041, 
but I think those patches still make sense. We can't guarantee 
this canonicalization if the icmp has more than one use.

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D47076

llvm-svn: 332819
2018-05-20 14:23:23 +00:00
Shiva Chen 2c864551df [DebugInfo] Add DILabel metadata and intrinsic llvm.dbg.label.
In order to set breakpoints on labels and list source code around
labels, we need collect debug information for labels, i.e., label
name, the function label belong, line number in the file, and the
address label located. In order to keep these information in LLVM
IR and to allow backend to generate debug information correctly.
We create a new kind of metadata for labels, DILabel. The format
of DILabel is

!DILabel(scope: !1, name: "foo", file: !2, line: 3)

We hope to keep debug information as much as possible even the
code is optimized. So, we create a new kind of intrinsic for label
metadata to avoid the metadata is eliminated with basic block.
The intrinsic will keep existing if we keep it from optimized out.
The format of the intrinsic is

llvm.dbg.label(metadata !1)

It has only one argument, that is the DILabel metadata. The
intrinsic will follow the label immediately. Backend could get the
label metadata through the intrinsic's parameter.

We also create DIBuilder API for labels to be used by Frontend.
Frontend could use createLabel() to allocate DILabel objects, and use
insertLabel() to insert llvm.dbg.label intrinsic in LLVM IR.

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D45024

Patch by Hsiangkai Wang.

llvm-svn: 331841
2018-05-09 02:40:45 +00:00