Commit Graph

25 Commits

Author SHA1 Message Date
Eric Christopher cee313d288 Revert "Temporarily Revert "Add basic loop fusion pass.""
The reversion apparently deleted the test/Transforms directory.

Will be re-reverting again.

llvm-svn: 358552
2019-04-17 04:52:47 +00:00
Eric Christopher a863435128 Temporarily Revert "Add basic loop fusion pass."
As it's causing some bot failures (and per request from kbarton).

This reverts commit r358543/ab70da07286e618016e78247e4a24fcb84077fda.

llvm-svn: 358546
2019-04-17 02:12:23 +00:00
David Green c066a92657 [InstCombine] Tests for ~A - Min/Max(~A, O) -> Max/Min(A, ~O) - A. NFC
llvm-svn: 343561
2018-10-02 09:06:49 +00:00
Craig Topper 2b3f5df73a [InstCombine] Fold (min/max ~X, Y) -> ~(max/min X, ~Y) when Y is freely invertible
Summary: This restores the combine that was reverted in r341883. The infinite loop from the failing test no longer occurs due to changes from r342163.

Reviewers: spatel, dmgreen

Reviewed By: spatel

Subscribers: llvm-commits

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D52070

llvm-svn: 342797
2018-09-22 05:53:27 +00:00
Alina Sbirlea 116caa2920 [InstCombine] Partially revert rL341674 due to PR38897.
Summary:
Revert min/max changes in rL341674 dues to high compile times causing timeouts (PR38897).
Checking in to unblock failing builds. Patch available for post-commit review and re-revert once resolved.
Working on a smaller reproducer for PR38897.

Reviewers: craig.topper, spatel

Subscribers: sanjoy, jlebar, llvm-commits

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D51897

llvm-svn: 341883
2018-09-10 23:47:21 +00:00
Craig Topper 040c2b0acf [InstCombine] Fold (min/max ~X, Y) -> ~(max/min X, ~Y) when Y is freely invertible
If the ~X wasn't able to simplify above the max/min, we might be able to simplify it by moving it below the max/min.

I had to modify the ~(min/max ~X, Y) transform to prevent getting stuck in a loop when we saw the new ~(max/min X, ~Y) before the ~Y had been folded away to remove the new not.

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D51398

llvm-svn: 341674
2018-09-07 16:19:50 +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
Artur Gainullin d928201ac5 Eliminate a bitwise 'not' op of 'not' min/max by inverting the min/max.
Bitwise 'not' of the min/max could be eliminated in the pattern:

%notx = xor i32 %x, -1
%cmp1 = icmp sgt[slt/ugt/ult] i32 %notx, %y
%smax = select i1 %cmp1, i32 %notx, i32 %y
%res = xor i32 %smax, -1

https://rise4fun.com/Alive/lCN

Reviewers: spatel

Reviewed by: spatel

Subscribers: a.elovikov, llvm-commits

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D45317

llvm-svn: 329791
2018-04-11 10:29:37 +00:00
Sanjay Patel 31051f8314 [InstCombine] add min/max tests with not ops; NFC
These are based on:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=35875
It's not clear if/how instcombine can reduce these,
but we should have the tests here either way to 
document current behavior.

llvm-svn: 327039
2018-03-08 18:34:23 +00:00
Sanjay Patel e63d8dda5a [ValueTracking] recognize min/max-of-min/max with notted ops (PR35875)
This was originally planned as the fix for:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=35834
...but simpler transforms handled that case, so I implemented a 
lesser solution. It turns out we need to handle the case with 'not'
ops too because the real code example that we are trying to solve:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=35875
...has extra uses of the intermediate values, so we can't rely on 
smaller canonicalizations to get us to the goal.

As with rL321672, I've tried to show every possibility in the
codegen tests because that's the simplest way to prove we're doing
the right thing in the wide variety of permutations of this pattern.

We can also show an InstCombine win because we added a fold for
this case in:
rL321998 / D41603

An Alive proof for one variant of the pattern to show that the 
InstCombine and codegen results are correct:
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/vd1

Name: min3_nots
  %nx = xor i8 %x, -1
  %ny = xor i8 %y, -1
  %nz = xor i8 %z, -1
  %cmpxz = icmp slt i8 %nx, %nz
  %minxz = select i1 %cmpxz, i8 %nx, i8 %nz
  %cmpyz = icmp slt i8 %ny, %nz
  %minyz = select i1 %cmpyz, i8 %ny, i8 %nz
  %cmpyx = icmp slt i8 %y, %x
  %r = select i1 %cmpyx, i8 %minxz, i8 %minyz
=>
  %cmpxyz = icmp slt i8 %minxz, %ny
  %r = select i1 %cmpxyz, i8 %minxz, i8 %ny

Name: min3_nots_alt
  %nx = xor i8 %x, -1
  %ny = xor i8 %y, -1
  %nz = xor i8 %z, -1
  %cmpxz = icmp slt i8 %nx, %nz
  %minxz = select i1 %cmpxz, i8 %nx, i8 %nz
  %cmpyz = icmp slt i8 %ny, %nz
  %minyz = select i1 %cmpyz, i8 %ny, i8 %nz
  %cmpyx = icmp slt i8 %y, %x
  %r = select i1 %cmpyx, i8 %minxz, i8 %minyz
=>
  %xz = icmp sgt i8 %x, %z
  %maxxz = select i1 %xz, i8 %x, i8 %z
  %xyz = icmp sgt i8 %maxxz, %y
  %maxxyz = select i1 %xyz, i8 %maxxz, i8 %y
  %r = xor i8 %maxxyz, -1

llvm-svn: 322283
2018-01-11 15:13:47 +00:00
Sanjay Patel e0df4650f8 [InstCombine] add min3-with-nots test (PR35875); NFC
llvm-svn: 322281
2018-01-11 14:53:45 +00:00
Sanjay Patel 31b4b76f99 [InstCombine] fold min/max tree with common operand (PR35717)
There is precedence for factorization transforms in instcombine for FP ops with fast-math. 
We also have similar logic in foldSPFofSPF().

It would take more work to add this to reassociate because that's specialized for binops, 
and min/max are not binops (or even single instructions). Also, I don't have evidence that 
larger min/max trees than this exist in real code, but if we find that's true, we might
want to reorganize where/how we do this optimization.

In the motivating example from https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=35717 , we have:

int test(int xc, int xm, int xy) {
  int xk;
  if (xc < xm)
    xk = xc < xy ? xc : xy;
  else
    xk = xm < xy ? xm : xy;
  return xk;
}

This patch solves that problem because we recognize more min/max patterns after rL321672

https://rise4fun.com/Alive/Qjne
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/3yg

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D41603

llvm-svn: 321998
2018-01-08 15:05:34 +00:00
Sanjay Patel 26a6fcde83 [InstCombine] relax use constraint for min/max (~a, ~b) --> ~min/max(a, b)
In the minimal case, this won't remove instructions, but it still improves
uses of existing values.

In the motivating example from PR35834, it does remove instructions, and
sets that case up to be optimized by something like D41603:
https://reviews.llvm.org/D41603

llvm-svn: 321936
2018-01-06 17:34:22 +00:00
Sanjay Patel f7e775291e [InstCombine] add more tests for max(~a, ~b) and PR35834; NFC
llvm-svn: 321935
2018-01-06 17:14:46 +00:00
Sanjay Patel 5b6aacf2c1 [InstCombine] add folds for min(~a, b) --> ~max(a, b)
Besides the bug of omitting the inverse transform of max(~a, ~b) --> ~min(a, b),
the use checking and operand creation were off. We were potentially creating 
repeated identical instructions of existing values. This led to infinite
looping after I added the extra folds.

By using the simpler m_Not matcher and not creating new 'not' ops for a and b,
we avoid that problem. It's possible that not using IsFreeToInvert() here is
more limiting than the simpler matcher, but there are no tests for anything
more exotic. It's also possible that we should relax the use checking further
to handle a case like PR35834:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=35834
...but we can make that a follow-up if it is needed. 

llvm-svn: 321882
2018-01-05 19:01:17 +00:00
Sanjay Patel 7227276d41 [InstCombine] canonicalize icmp predicate feeding select
This canonicalization was suggested in D33172 as a way to make InstCombine behavior more uniform. 
We have this transform for icmp+br, so unless there's some reason that icmp+select should be 
treated differently, we should do the same thing here.

The benefit comes from increasing the chances of creating identical instructions. This is shown in
the tests in logical-select.ll (PR32791). InstCombine doesn't fold those directly, but EarlyCSE 
can simplify the identical cmps, and then InstCombine can fold the selects together.

The possible regression for the tests in select.ll raises questions about poison/undef:
http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2017-May/113261.html

...but that transform is just as likely to be triggered by this canonicalization as it is to be 
missed, so we're just pointing out a commutation deficiency in the pattern matching:
https://reviews.llvm.org/rL228409

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D34242

llvm-svn: 306435
2017-06-27 17:53:22 +00:00
Anna Thomas ec36f3b79a [InstCombine] Do not exercise nested max/min pattern on abs
Summary:
This is a fix for assertion failure in
`getInverseMinMaxSelectPattern` when ABS is passed in as a select pattern.

We should not be invoking the simplification rule for
ABS(MIN(~ x,y))) or ABS(MAX(~x,y)) combinations.

Added a test case which would cause an assertion failure without the patch.

Reviewers: sanjoy, majnemer

Subscribers: llvm-commits

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D30051

llvm-svn: 295719
2017-02-21 14:40:28 +00:00
Sanjay Patel 4e9d6cd354 [InstCombine] fix profitability equation for max-of-nots transform
As the test change shows, we can increase the critical path by adding
a 'not' instruction, so make sure that we're actually removing an
instruction if we do this transform.

This transform could also cause us to miss folds of min/max pairs.

llvm-svn: 286315
2016-11-09 00:13:11 +00:00
Sanjay Patel 36eeb6d6f6 [ValueTracking] recognize more variants of smin/smax
Try harder to detect obfuscated min/max patterns: the initial pattern was added with D9352 / rL236202. 
There was a bug fix for PR27137 at rL264996, but I think we can do better by folding the corresponding
smax pattern and commuted variants.

The codegen tests demonstrate the effect of ValueTracking on the backend via SelectionDAGBuilder. We
can't expose these differences minimally in IR because we don't have smin/smax intrinsics for IR.

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D26091

llvm-svn: 285499
2016-10-29 16:21:19 +00:00
Sanjay Patel 19ace1d548 [InstCombine] move/add tests for smin/smax folds
llvm-svn: 285414
2016-10-28 16:54:03 +00:00
Sanjay Patel 611f9f92fc [InstCombine] handle simple vector integer constants in IsFreeToInvert
llvm-svn: 285318
2016-10-27 17:30:50 +00:00
Sanjay Patel d5b8d64d4b [InstCombine] add tests for missing folds of vector abs/nabs/min/max
llvm-svn: 285299
2016-10-27 15:02:45 +00:00
Sanjay Patel f21dd2648f [InstCombine] auto-generate better checks; NFC
llvm-svn: 285293
2016-10-27 13:55:37 +00:00
Sanjoy Das 08e95b4703 [InstCombine] Add new rule for MIN(MAX(~A, ~B), ~C) et. al.
Summary:
Optimizing these well are especially interesting for IRCE since it
"clamps" values by generating this sort of pattern through SCEV
expressions.

Depends on D9352.

Reviewers: majnemer

Subscribers: llvm-commits

Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D9353

llvm-svn: 236203
2015-04-30 04:56:04 +00:00
Sanjoy Das 82ea3d45b5 New instcombine rule: max(~a,~b) -> ~min(a, b)
This case is interesting because ScalarEvolutionExpander lowers min(a,
b) as ~max(~a,~b).  I think the profitability heuristics can be made
more clever/aggressive, but this is a start.

Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D7821

llvm-svn: 230285
2015-02-24 00:08:41 +00:00