Summary:
This patch is part of 3 patches that together form a single patch, but must be introduced in stages in order not to break things.
The way that LLVM interprets DW_OP_plus in DIExpression nodes is basically that of the DW_OP_plus_uconst operator since LLVM expects an unsigned constant operand. This unnecessarily restricts the DW_OP_plus operator, preventing it from being used to describe the evaluation of runtime values on the expression stack. These patches try to align the semantics of DW_OP_plus and DW_OP_minus with that of the DWARF definition, which pops two elements off the expression stack, performs the operation and pushes the result back on the stack.
This is done in three stages:
• The first patch (LLVM) adds support for DW_OP_plus_uconst.
• The second patch (Clang) contains changes all its uses from DW_OP_plus to DW_OP_plus_uconst.
• The third patch (LLVM) changes the semantics of DW_OP_plus and DW_OP_minus to be in line with its DWARF meaning. This patch includes the bitcode upgrade from legacy DIExpressions.
Patch by Sander de Smalen.
Reviewers: echristo, pcc, aprantl
Reviewed By: aprantl
Subscribers: fhahn, javed.absar, aprantl, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D33894
llvm-svn: 305386
InstCombine has an optimization that recognizes an and with the sign bit of legal type size and turns it into a truncate and compare that checks the sign bit. But the select handling code doesn't recognize this idiom.
llvm-svn: 305338
This was discussed in D33338. We have larger pattern-matching ending in a truncate that
we can reduce or remove by handling these smaller patterns first. Further motivation is
that narrower shift ops are easier for value tracking and zext is better than sext.
http://rise4fun.com/Alive/rhh
Name: boolshift
%sext = sext i1 %x to i8
%r = lshr i8 %sext, 7
=>
%r = zext i1 %x to i8
Name: noboolshift
%sext = sext i3 %x to i8
%r = lshr i8 %sext, 7
=>
%sh = lshr i3 %x, 2
%r = zext i3 %sh to i8
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D33879
llvm-svn: 304939
This fixes a bug that can cause extractelements with operands that
haven't been defined yet to be inserted at a wrong point when
optimising insertelements.
Patch by Karl Hylen.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D33449
llvm-svn: 304701
There's probably a lot more like this (see also comments in D33338 about responsibility),
but I suspect we don't usually get a visible manifestation.
Given the recent interest in improving InstCombine efficiency, another potential micro-opt
that could be repeated several times in this function: morph the existing icmp pred/operands
instead of creating a new instruction.
llvm-svn: 303860
The swapped operands in the first test is a manifestation of an
inefficiency for vectors that doesn't exist for scalars because
the IRBuilder checks for an all-ones mask for scalars, but not
vectors.
llvm-svn: 303818
As noted in https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=33138 and
the comments, there are multiple ways to view this. If we
choose not to solve this in InstCombine, these tests will
serve as documentation of that choice.
llvm-svn: 303755
The solution for PR26702 ( https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=26702 )
added a canonicalization rule, but the minimal regression tests don't
demonstrate how that rule interacts with other folds.
llvm-svn: 303750
Also, rename the tests and the file, add comments, and add more tests
because there are no existing tests for some of these folds.
These patterns are particularly important for crippled vector ISAs that
have limited compare predicates (PR33138).
llvm-svn: 303652
Otherwise we end up miscompiling, transforming:
define i8 @tinky() {
%sext = sext i1 1 to i16
%hibit = lshr i16 %sext, 15
%tr = trunc i16 %hibit to i8
ret i8 %tr
}
into:
%sext = sext i1 1 to i8
ret i8 %sext
and the first get folded to ret i8 1, while the second gets folded
to ret i8 -1.
Eventually we should get rid of this transform entirely, but for now,
this at least fixes a know correctness bug.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D33338
llvm-svn: 303513
As discussed in:
https://reviews.llvm.org/D33338
...we may be able to remove a wider pattern match by doing these more
basic canonicalizations.
llvm-svn: 303504
Refactor the strlen optimization code to work for both strlen and wcslen.
This especially helps with programs in the wild where people pass
L"string"s to const std::wstring& function parameters and the wstring
constructor gets inlined.
This also fixes a lingerind API problem/bug in getConstantStringInfo()
where zeroinitializers would always give you an empty string (without a
length) back regardless of the actual length of the initializer which
did not work well in the TrimAtNul==false causing the PR mentioned
below.
Note that the fixed getConstantStringInfo() needed fixes to SelectionDAG
memcpy lowering and may lead to some cases for out-of-bounds
zeroinitializer accesses not getting optimized anymore. So some code
with UB may produce out of bound memory reads now instead of just
producing zeros.
The refactoring "accidentally" fixes http://llvm.org/PR32124
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D32839
llvm-svn: 303461
The missing optimization for xor-of-icmps still needs to be added, but by
being more efficient (not generating unnecessary logic ops with constants)
we avoid the bug.
See discussion in post-commit comments:
https://reviews.llvm.org/D32143
llvm-svn: 303312
There should be a slight efficiency improvement from handling icmp/fcmp with one matcher and reducing duplicated code.
The larger motivation is that there are questions about how predicate canonicalization is handled, and the refactoring
should make it easier if we want to change any of that behavior.
1. As noted in the code comment, we've chosen 3 of the 16 FCMP preds as not canonical. Why those 3? It goes back to
rL32751 from what I can tell, but I'm not sure if there's a justification for that rule.
2. We currently do not canonicalize integer select conditions. Should we use the same rule that applies to branches
for selects?
3. We currently do canonicalize some FP select conditions, and those rules would conflict with the rule shown here.
Should one or both be changed?
No-functional-change-intended, but adding tests anyway because there's no coverage for most of the predicates.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D33247
llvm-svn: 303261
The referenced tests are derived from:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=32791
and:
https://reviews.llvm.org/D33172
The motivation for including negative tests may not be clear, so I'm adding an explanatory comment here.
In the post-commit thread for r303133:
http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-commits/Week-of-Mon-20170515/453793.html
...it was mentioned that we don't want to add redundant tests. This is a valid point. But in this case,
we have a patch under review (D33172) that demonstrates that no existing regression tests are affected by
a proposed code change, but these are. Therefore, I think these tests have value not visible in any
existing regression tests regardless of whether they show a transform.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D33242
llvm-svn: 303185
Summary:
If the Worklist build causes an IR change this change flag currently factors into the flag for running another iteration of the iteration loop. But only changes during processing should trigger another loop.
This patch captures the worklist creation change flag into the outside the loop flag currently used for DbgDeclares and only sends that flag up to the caller. Rerunning the loop only depends on IC.run() now.
This uses the debug output of InstCombine to determine if one or two iterations run. I couldn't think of a better way to detect it since the second spurious iteration shoudn't make any visible changes. Just wasted computation.
I can do a pre-commit of the test case with the CHECK-NOT as a CHECK if this is an ok way to check this.
This is a subset of D31678 as I'm still not sure how to verify the analysis behavior for that.
Reviewers: davide, majnemer, spatel, chandlerc
Reviewed By: davide
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D32453
llvm-svn: 302982
Tests with target intrinsics are inherently target specific, so it
doesn't actually make sense to run them if we've excluded their
target.
llvm-svn: 302979
// (X ^ C1) | C2 --> (X | C2) ^ (C1&~C2)
This canonicalization was added at:
https://reviews.llvm.org/rL7264
By moving xors out/down, we can more easily combine constants. I'm adding
tests that do not change with this patch, so we can verify that those kinds
of transforms are still happening.
This is no-functional-change-intended because there's a later fold:
// (X^C)|Y -> (X|Y)^C iff Y&C == 0
...and demanded-bits appears to guarantee that any fold that would have
hit the fold we're removing here would be caught by that 2nd fold.
Similar reasoning was used in:
https://reviews.llvm.org/rL299384
The larger motivation for removing this code is that it could interfere with
the fix for PR32706:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=32706
Ie, we're not checking if the 'xor' is actually a 'not', so we could reverse
a 'not' optimization and cause an infinite loop by altering an 'xor X, -1'.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D33050
llvm-svn: 302733
The first test in this file is duplicated exactly in and.ll -> test33.
We have commuted and vector variants there too.
The second test is a composite of 2 folds. The first fold is tested
independently in add.ll -> flip_and_mask (including vector variant).
After that transform fires, the IR is identical to the first transform.
llvm-svn: 302676
The script at utils/update_test_checks.py has (had?) a bug when variables
start with the same sequence of letters (clearly, not all of the time).
llvm-svn: 302674
This is another step towards favoring 'not' ops over random 'xor' in IR:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=32706
This transformation may have occurred in longer IR sequences using computeKnownBits,
but that could be much more expensive to calculate.
As the scalar result shows, we do not currently favor 'not' in all cases. The 'not'
created by the transform is transformed again (unnecessarily). Vectors don't have
this problem because vectors are (wrongly) excluded from several other combines.
llvm-svn: 302659
The comment says to avoid the case where zero bits are shifted into the truncated value,
but the code checks that the shift is smaller than the truncated value instead of the
number of bits added by the sign extension. Fixing this allows a shift by more than the
value size to be introduced, which is undefined behavior, so the shift is capped at the
value size minus one, which has the expected behavior of filling the value with the sign
bit.
Patch by Jacob Young!
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D32285
llvm-svn: 302548
This is another step towards getting rid of dyn_castNotVal,
so we can recommit:
https://reviews.llvm.org/rL300977
As the tests show, we were missing the lshr case for constants
and both ashr/lshr vector splat folds. The ashr case with constant
was being performed inefficiently in 2 steps. It's also possible
there was a latent bug in that case because we can't do that fold
if the constant is positive:
http://rise4fun.com/Alive/Bge
llvm-svn: 302465
This patch uses KnownOnes of the input of ctlz/cttz to bound the value that can be returned from these intrinsics. This makes these intrinsics more similar to the handling for ctpop which already uses known bits to produce a similar bound.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D32521
llvm-svn: 302444
We can simplify (or (icmp X, C1), (icmp X, C2)) to 'true' or one of the icmps in many cases.
I had to check some of these with Alive to prove to myself it's right, but everything seems
to check out. Eg, the deleted code in instcombine was completely ignoring predicates with
mismatched signedness.
This is a follow-up to:
https://reviews.llvm.org/rL301260https://reviews.llvm.org/D32143
llvm-svn: 302370
Change checkRippleForAdd from a heuristic to a full check -
if it is provable that the add does not overflow return true, otherwise false.
Patch by Yoav Ben-Shalom
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D32686
llvm-svn: 302093
Fixes PR31789 - When loop-vectorize tries to use these intrinsics for a
non-default address space pointer we fail with a "Calling a function with a
bad singature!" assertion. This patch solves this by adding the 'vector of
pointers' argument as an overloaded type which will determine the address
space.
Differential revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D31490
llvm-svn: 302018
This was originally checked in here:
https://reviews.llvm.org/rL301923
And reverted here:
https://reviews.llvm.org/rL301924
Because there's a clang test that would fail after this. I fixed/removed the
offending CHECK lines in:
https://reviews.llvm.org/rL301928
So let's try this again. Original commit message:
This is the fold that causes the infinite loop in BoringSSL
(https://github.com/google/boringssl/blob/master/crypto/cipher/e_rc2.c)
when we fix instcombine demanded bits to prefer 'not' ops as in https://reviews.llvm.org/D32255.
There are 2 or 3 problems with dyn_castNotVal, and I don't think we can
reinstate https://reviews.llvm.org/D32255 until dyn_castNotVal is completely eliminated.
1. As shown here, it transforms 'not' into random xor. This transform is harmful to SCEV and codegen because 'not' can often be folded while random xor cannot.
2. It does not transform vector constants. This is actually a good thing, but if you don't believe the above argument, then we shouldn't have excluded vectors.
3. It tries to avoid transforming not(not(X)). That's nice, but it doesn't match the greedy nature of instcombine. If we DeMorganize a pattern that has an extra 'not' in it: ~(~(~X) & Y) --> (~X | ~Y)
That's just another case of DeMorgan, so we should trust that we'll fold that pattern too: (~X | ~ Y) --> ~(X & Y)
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D32665
llvm-svn: 301929
This is the fold that causes the infinite loop in BoringSSL
(https://github.com/google/boringssl/blob/master/crypto/cipher/e_rc2.c)
when we fix instcombine demanded bits to prefer 'not' ops as in D32255.
There are 2 or 3 problems with dyn_castNotVal, and I don't think we can
reinstate D32255 until dyn_castNotVal is completely eliminated.
1. As shown here, it transforms 'not' into random xor. This transform is
harmful to SCEV and codegen because 'not' can often be folded while
random xor cannot.
2. It does not transform vector constants. This is actually a good thing,
but if you don't believe the above argument, then we shouldn't have
excluded vectors.
3. It tries to avoid transforming not(not(X)). That's nice, but it doesn't
match the greedy nature of instcombine. If we DeMorganize a pattern
that has an extra 'not' in it:
~(~(~X) & Y) --> (~X | ~Y)
That's just another case of DeMorgan, so we should trust that we'll fold
that pattern too:
(~X | ~ Y) --> ~(X & Y)
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D32665
llvm-svn: 301923
If we have ~(~X & Y), it only makes sense to transform it to (X | ~Y) when we do not need
the intermediate (~X & Y) value. In that case, we would need an extra instruction to
generate ~Y + 'or' (as shown in the test changes).
It's ok if we have multiple uses of ~X or Y, however. In those cases, we may not reduce the
instruction count or critical path, but we might improve throughput because we can generate
~X and ~Y in parallel. Whether that actually makes perf sense or not for a target is something
we can't answer in IR.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D32703
llvm-svn: 301848
The matching here wasn't able to handle all the possible commutes. It always assumed the not would be on the left of the xor, but that's not guaranteed.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D32474
llvm-svn: 301316
We can simplify (and (icmp X, C1), (icmp X, C2)) to one of the icmps in many cases.
I had to check some of these with Alive to prove to myself it's right, but everything
seems to check out. Eg, the code in instcombine was completely ignoring predicates with
mismatched signedness.
Handling or-of-icmps would be a follow-up step.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D32143
llvm-svn: 301260
This is a straight cut and paste, but there's a bigger problem: if this
fold exists for simplifyOr, there should be a DeMorganized version for
simplifyAnd. But more than that, we have a patchwork of ad hoc logic
optimizations in InstCombine. There should be some structure to ensure
that we're not missing sibling folds across and/or/xor.
llvm-svn: 301213
When the location description of a source variable involves arithmetic
on the value itself, it needs to be marked with DW_OP_stack_value since it
is not describing the variable's location, but rather its value.
This is a follow-up to r297971 and fixes the source testcase quoted in
the comment in debuginfo-dce.ll.
rdar://problem/30725338
This reapplies r301093 without modifications.
llvm-svn: 301210
There is logic to track the expected number of instructions
produced. It thought in this case an instruction would
be necessary to negate the result, but here it folded
into a ConstantExpr fneg when the non-undef value operand
was cancelled out by the second fsub.
I'm not sure why we don't fold constant FP ops with undef currently,
but I think that would also avoid this problem.
llvm-svn: 301199
Summary:
The return value of these intrinsics should always have 0 bits for
inactive threads. This means that when all arguments are constant
and the comparison evaluates to true, the intrinsic should return
the current exec mask.
Fixes some GL_ARB_shader_ballot tests.
Reviewers: arsenm
Subscribers: kzhuravl, wdng, yaxunl, dstuttard, tpr, llvm-commits, t-tye
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D32344
llvm-svn: 301195
We handled all of the commuted variants for plain xor already,
although they were scattered around and sometimes folded less
efficiently using distributive laws. We had no folds for not-xor.
Handling all of these patterns consistently is part of trying to
reinstate:
https://reviews.llvm.org/rL300977
llvm-svn: 301144
There's probably some better way to write this that eliminates the
code duplication without hurting readability, but at least this
eliminates the logic holes and is hopefully slightly more efficient
than creating new instructions.
llvm-svn: 301129
When the location description of a source variable involves arithmetic
on the value itself, it needs to be marked with DW_OP_stack_value since it
is not describing the variable's location, but rather its value.
This is a follow-up to r297971 and fixes the source testcase quoted in
the comment in debuginfo-dce.ll.
rdar://problem/30725338
llvm-svn: 301093
The bug was introduced by r301018 "[InstCombine] fadd double (sitofp x), y check that the promotion is valid". The patch didn't expect that fadd can be on vectors not necessarily scalars. Add vector support along with the test.
llvm-svn: 301070
Doing these transformations check that the result of integer addition is representable in the FP type.
(fadd double (sitofp x), fpcst) --> (sitofp (add int x, intcst))
(fadd double (sitofp x), (sitofp y)) --> (sitofp (add int x, y))
This is a fix for https://bugs.llvm.org//show_bug.cgi?id=27036
Reviewed By: andrew.w.kaylor, scanon, spatel
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D31182
llvm-svn: 301018
Florian Hahn