Summary:
I have stumbled into this by accident while preparing to extend backend `x s% C ==/!= 0` handling.
While we did happen to handle this fold in most of the cases,
the folding is indirect - we fold `x u% y` to `x & (y-1)` (iff `y` is power-of-two),
or first turn `x s% -y` to `x u% y`; that does handle most of the cases.
But we can't turn `x s% INT_MIN` to `x u% -INT_MIN`,
and thus we end up being stuck with `(x s% INT_MIN) == 0`.
There is no such restriction for the more general fold:
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/IIeS
To be noted, the fold does not enforce that `y` is a constant,
so it may indeed increase instruction count.
This is consistent with what `x u% y`->`x & (y-1)` already does.
I think it makes sense, it's at most one (simple) extra instruction,
while `rem`ainder is really much more un-simple (and likely **very** costly).
Reviewers: spatel, RKSimon, nikic, xbolva00, craig.topper
Reviewed By: RKSimon
Subscribers: hiraditya, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D65046
llvm-svn: 367322
As it's causing some bot failures (and per request from kbarton).
This reverts commit r358543/ab70da07286e618016e78247e4a24fcb84077fda.
llvm-svn: 358546
Similar to other patches in this series:
https://reviews.llvm.org/rL335512https://reviews.llvm.org/rL335527https://reviews.llvm.org/rL335597https://reviews.llvm.org/rL335616
...this is filling a gap in analysis that is exposed by an unrelated select-of-constants transform.
I didn't see a way to unify the sext cases because each div/rem opcode results in a different fold.
Note that in this case, the backend might want to convert the select into math:
Name: sext urem
%e = sext i1 %x to i32
%r = urem i32 %y, %e
=>
%c = icmp eq i32 %y, -1
%z = zext i1 %c to i32
%r = add i32 %z, %y
llvm-svn: 335622
Summary:
This is [[ https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=37603 | PR37603 ]].
https://godbolt.org/g/VCMNpShttps://rise4fun.com/Alive/idM
When doing bit manipulations, it is quite common to calculate some bit mask,
and apply it to some value via `and`.
The typical C code looks like:
```
int mask_signed_add(int nbits) {
return (1 << nbits) - 1;
}
```
which is translated into (with `-O3`)
```
define dso_local i32 @mask_signed_add(int)(i32) local_unnamed_addr #0 {
%2 = shl i32 1, %0
%3 = add nsw i32 %2, -1
ret i32 %3
}
```
But there is a second, less readable variant:
```
int mask_signed_xor(int nbits) {
return ~(-(1 << nbits));
}
```
which is translated into (with `-O3`)
```
define dso_local i32 @mask_signed_xor(int)(i32) local_unnamed_addr #0 {
%2 = shl i32 -1, %0
%3 = xor i32 %2, -1
ret i32 %3
}
```
Since we created such a mask, it is quite likely that we will use it in `and` next.
And then we may get rid of `not` op by folding into `andn`.
But now that i have actually looked:
https://godbolt.org/g/VTUDmU
_some_ backend changes will be needed too.
We clearly loose `bzhi` recognition.
Reviewers: spatel, craig.topper, RKSimon
Reviewed By: spatel
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D47428
llvm-svn: 334127
Add logic for the special case when a cmp+select can clearly be
reduced to just a bitwise logic instruction, and remove an
over-reaching chunk of general purpose bit magic. The primary goal
is to remove cases where we are not improving the IR instruction
count when doing these select transforms, and in all cases here that
is true.
In the motivating 3-way compare tests, there are further improvements
because we can combine/propagate select values (not sure if that
belongs in instcombine, but it's there for now).
DAGCombiner has folds to turn some of these selects into bit magic,
so there should be no difference in the end result in those cases.
Not all constant combinations are handled there yet, however, so it
is possible that some targets will see more cmov/csel codegen with
this change in IR canonicalization.
Ideally, we'll go further to *not* turn selects into multiple
logic/math ops in instcombine, and we'll canonicalize to selects.
But we should make sure that this step does not result in regressions
first (and if it does, we should fix those in the backend).
The general direction for this change was discussed here:
http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2016-September/105373.htmlhttp://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2017-July/114885.html
Alive proofs for the new bit magic:
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/XG7
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D46086
llvm-svn: 331486
Since FoldOpIntoPhi speculates the binary operation to potentially each
of the predecessors of the PHI node (pulling it out of arbitrary control
dependence in the process), we can FoldOpIntoPhi only if we know the
operation doesn't have UB.
This also brings up an interesting profitability question -- the way it
is written today, commonIRemTransforms will hoist out work from
dynamically dead code into code that will execute at runtime. Perhaps
that isn't the best canonicalization?
Fixes PR27968.
llvm-svn: 271857
We could try harder to handle non-splat vector constants too,
but that seems much rarer to me.
Note that the div test isn't resolved because there's a check
for isIntegerTy() guarding that transform.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D20497
llvm-svn: 270369
The code was actually correct. Sorry for the confusion. I have expanded the
comment saying why the analysis is valid to avoid me misunderstaning it
again in the future.
llvm-svn: 210052
Call into ComputeMaskedBits to figure out which bits are set on both add
operands and determine if the value is a power-of-two-or-zero or not.
llvm-svn: 187445
This update was done with the following bash script:
find test/Transforms -name "*.ll" | \
while read NAME; do
echo "$NAME"
if ! grep -q "^; *RUN: *llc" $NAME; then
TEMP=`mktemp -t temp`
cp $NAME $TEMP
sed -n "s/^define [^@]*@\([A-Za-z0-9_]*\)(.*$/\1/p" < $NAME | \
while read FUNC; do
sed -i '' "s/;\(.*\)\([A-Za-z0-9_]*\):\( *\)@$FUNC\([( ]*\)\$/;\1\2-LABEL:\3@$FUNC(/g" $TEMP
done
mv $TEMP $NAME
fi
done
llvm-svn: 186268
(add nsw x, (and x, y)) isn't a power of two if x is zero, it's zero
(add nsw x, (xor x, y)) isn't a power of two if y has bits set that aren't set in x
llvm-svn: 185954
There are two transforms in visitUrem that conflict with each other.
*) One, if a divisor is a power of two, subtracts one from the divisor
and turns it into a bitwise-and.
*) The other unwraps both operands if they are surrounded by zext
instructions.
Flipping the order allows the subtraction to go beneath the sign
extension.
llvm-svn: 181668
Update these tests to not use the same name even though the type of the
value differs. After PR411 hits, type planes will be gone and it will be
illegal for a name to be used twice, regardless of type.
llvm-svn: 33660
Roman Lebedev