There are 1-2 potential follow-up NFC commits to reduce
this further on the way to generalizing this for vectors.
The operand replacing path should be dead code because demanded
bits handles that more generally (D91415).
There might be a better way to specify the pre-conditions,
but this is hopefully clearer than the way it was written:
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/Jhk3
Pre: C2 < 0 && isShiftedMask(C2) && (C1 == C1 & C2)
%a = and %x, C2
%r = add %a, C1
=>
%a2 = add %x, C1
%r = and %a2, C2
This eliminates a use of 'B', so it can enable follow-on transforms
as well as improve analysis/codegen.
The PhaseOrdering test was added for D61726, and that shows
the limits of instcombine vs. real reassociation. We would
need to run some form of CSE to collapse that further.
The intermediate variable naming here is intentional because
there's a test at llvm/test/Bitcode/value-with-long-name.ll
that would break with the usual nameless value. I'm not sure
how to improve that test to be more robust.
The naming may also be helpful to debug regressions if this
change exposes weaknesses in the reassociation pass for example.
Summary:
To be noted, this pattern is not unhandled by instcombine per-se,
it is somehow does end up being folded when one runs opt -O3,
but not if it's just -instcombine. Regardless, that fold is
indirect, depends on some other folds, and is thus blind
when there are extra uses.
This does address the regression being exposed in D63992.
https://godbolt.org/z/7DGltUhttps://rise4fun.com/Alive/EPO0
Fixes [[ https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=42459 | PR42459 ]]
Reviewers: spatel, nikic, huihuiz
Reviewed By: spatel
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D63993
llvm-svn: 364792
(X | C1) + C2 --> (X | C1) ^ C1 iff (C1 == -C2)
I verified the correctness using Alive:
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/YNV
This transform enables the following transform that already exists in
instcombine:
(X | Y) ^ Y --> X & ~Y
As a result, the full expected transform is:
(X | C1) + C2 --> X & ~C1 iff (C1 == -C2)
There already exists the transform in the sub case:
(X | Y) - Y --> X & ~Y
However this does not trigger in the case where Y is constant due to an earlier
transform:
X - (-C) --> X + C
With this new add fold, both the add and sub constant cases are handled.
Patch by Chris Dawson.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D61517
llvm-svn: 360185
As it's causing some bot failures (and per request from kbarton).
This reverts commit r358543/ab70da07286e618016e78247e4a24fcb84077fda.
llvm-svn: 358546
This is part of a transform that may be done in the backend:
D13757
...but it should always be beneficial to fold this sooner in IR
for all targets.
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/vaiW
Name: sext add nsw
%add = add nsw i8 %i, C0
%ext = sext i8 %add to i32
%r = add i32 %ext, C1
=>
%s = sext i8 %i to i32
%r = add i32 %s, sext(C0)+C1
Name: zext add nuw
%add = add nuw i8 %i, C0
%ext = zext i8 %add to i16
%r = add i16 %ext, C1
=>
%s = zext i8 %i to i16
%r = add i16 %s, zext(C0)+C1
llvm-svn: 355118
Part of D58593.
Compute precise overflow conditions based on all known bits, rather
than just the sign bits. Unsigned a + b overflows iff a > ~b, and we
can determine whether this always/never happens based on the minimal
and maximal values achievable for a and ~b subject to the known bits
constraint.
llvm-svn: 355072
add A, sext(B) --> sub A, zext(B)
We have to choose 1 of these forms, so I'm opting for the
zext because that's easier for value tracking.
The backend should be prepared for this change after:
D57401
rL353433
This is also a preliminary step towards reducing the amount
of bit hackery that we do in IR to optimize icmp/select.
That should be waiting to happen at a later optimization stage.
The seeming regression in the fuzzer test was discussed in:
D58359
We were only managing that fold in instcombine by luck, and
other passes should be able to deal with that better anyway.
llvm-svn: 354748
Turn canonicalized subtraction back into (-1 - B) and combine it with (A + 1) into (A - B).
This is similar to the folding already done for (B ^ -1) + Const into (-1 + Const) - B.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D48535
llvm-svn: 335579
We canonicalize to select with a zext-add and either zext-sub or sext-sub,
so this shows a pattern that's not conforming to the general trend.
llvm-svn: 335506
This test had values that differed in only in capitalization,
and that causes problems for the auto-generating check line
script. So I changed that in rL331226, but I accidentally
forgot to change a subsequent use of a param.
llvm-svn: 331228
http://rise4fun.com/Alive/i8Q
A narrow bitwise logic op is obviously better than math for value tracking,
and zext is better than sext. Typically, the 'not' will be folded into an
icmp predicate.
The IR difference would even survive through codegen for x86, so we would see
worse code:
https://godbolt.org/g/C14HMF
one_or_zero(int, int): # @one_or_zero(int, int)
xorl %eax, %eax
cmpl %esi, %edi
setle %al
retq
one_or_zero_alt(int, int): # @one_or_zero_alt(int, int)
xorl %ecx, %ecx
cmpl %esi, %edi
setg %cl
movl $1, %eax
subl %ecx, %eax
retq
llvm-svn: 306243
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
We currently only fold scalar add of constants into selects. This improves this to support vectors too.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D31683
llvm-svn: 299847
Changing to 'or' (rather than 'xor' when no wrapping flags are set)
allows icmp simplifies to happen as expected.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D29729
llvm-svn: 295574
The change to InstCombine in:
https://reviews.llvm.org/D29729
...exposes this missing fold in InstSimplify, so adding this
first to avoid a regression.
llvm-svn: 295573
The code comments didn't match the code logic, and we didn't actually distinguish the fake unary (not/neg/fneg)
operators from arguments. Adding another level to the weighting scheme provides more structure and can help
simplify the pattern matching in InstCombine and other places.
I fixed regressions that would have shown up from this change in:
rL290067
rL290127
But that doesn't mean there are no pattern-matching logic holes left; some combines may just be missing regression tests.
Should fix:
https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=28296
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D27933
llvm-svn: 294049
We can perform the following:
(add (zext (add nuw X, C1)), C2) -> (zext (add nuw X, C1+C2))
This is only possible if C2 is negative and C2 is greater than or equal to negative C1.
llvm-svn: 290927
This removes the restriction for the icmp constant, but as noted by the FIXME comments,
we still need to change individual checks for binop operand constants.
llvm-svn: 277629
Bjorn Pettersson