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
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
...when C1 differs from C2 by one bit and C1 <u C2:
http://rise4fun.com/Alive/Vuo
And move related folds to a helper function. This reduces code duplication and
will make it easier to remove the scalar-only restriction as a follow-up step.
llvm-svn: 300364
A number of new patterns for simplifying and/xor of icmp:
(icmp ne %x, 0) ^ (icmp ne %y, 0) => icmp ne %x, %y if the following is true:
1- (%x = and %a, %mask) and (%y = and %b, %mask)
2- %mask is a power of 2.
(icmp eq %x, 0) & (icmp ne %y, 0) => icmp ult %x, %y if the following is true:
1- (%x = and %a, %mask1) and (%y = and %b, %mask2)
2- Let %t be the smallest power of 2 where %mask1 & %t != 0. Then for any
%s that is a power of 2 and %s & %mask2 != 0, we must have %s <= %t.
For example if %mask1 = 24 and %mask2 = 16, setting %s = 16 and %t = 8
violates condition (2) above. So this optimization cannot be applied.
llvm-svn: 289813
Sanjay Patel