As it's causing some bot failures (and per request from kbarton).
This reverts commit r358543/ab70da07286e618016e78247e4a24fcb84077fda.
llvm-svn: 358546
This is D59386 for the signed add case. The computeConstantRange()
result is now intersected into the existing known bits information,
allowing to detect additional no-overflow/always-overflow conditions
(though the latter isn't used yet).
This (finally...) covers the motivating case from D59071.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D60420
llvm-svn: 358014
Improve computeOverflowForUnsignedAdd/Sub in ValueTracking by
intersecting the computeConstantRange() result into the ConstantRange
created from computeKnownBits(). This allows us to detect some
additional never/always overflows conditions that can't be determined
from known bits.
This revision also adds basic handling for constants to
computeConstantRange(). Non-splat vectors will be handled in a followup.
The signed case will also be handled in a followup, as it needs some
more groundwork.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D59386
llvm-svn: 356489
This fold hit the trifecta:
1. It was untested.
2. It oversteps (multiuse is not checked, so increases instruction count).
3. It is incomplete (doesn't work for vectors).
llvm-svn: 308102
Currently if we reach an instruction with multiples uses we know we can't do any optimizations to that instruction itself since we only have the demanded bits for one of the users. But if we know all of the bits are zero/one for that one user we can still go ahead and create a constant to give to that user.
This might then reduce the instruction to having a single use and allow additional optimizations on the other path.
This picks up an additional case that r300075 didn't catch.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D31552
llvm-svn: 300084
If we are adding/subtractings 0s below the highest demanded bit we can just use the other operand and remove the operation.
My primary motivation is observing that we can call ShrinkDemandedConstant for the add/sub and create a 0 constant, rather than removing the add completely. In the case I saw, we modified the constant on an add instruction to a 0, but the add is not put into the worklist. So we didn't revisit it until the next InstCombine iteration. This caused an IR modification to remove add and a subsequent iteration to be ran.
With this change we get bypass the add in the first iteration and prevent the second iteration from changing anything.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D31120
llvm-svn: 300075
By moving this transform to InstSimplify from InstCombine, we sidestep the problem/question
raised by PR27869:
https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=27869
...where InstCombine turns an icmp+zext into a shift causing us to miss the fold.
Credit to David Majnemer for a draft patch of the changes to InstructionSimplify.cpp.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D21512
llvm-svn: 273200
This is a partial fix for PR24886:
https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=24886
Without this IR transform, the backend (x86 at least) was producing inefficient code.
This patch is making 2 assumptions:
1. The canonical form of a fabs() operation is, in fact, the LLVM fabs() intrinsic.
2. The high bit of an FP value is always the sign bit; as noted in the bug report, this isn't specified by the LangRef.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D13076
llvm-svn: 249702
Summary: We know that -x & 1 is equivalent to x & 1, avoid using negation for testing if a negative integer is even or odd.
Reviewers: majnemer
Subscribers: junbuml, mssimpso, gberry, mcrosier, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D12156
llvm-svn: 245569
consider: (and (icmp X, Y), (and Z, (icmp A, B)))
It may be possible to combine (icmp X, Y) with (icmp A, B).
If we successfully combine, create an 'and' instruction with Z.
This fixes PR20814.
N.B. There is room for improvement after this change but I'm not
convinced it's worth chasing yet.
llvm-svn: 216814
When both constants are positive or both constants are negative,
InstCombine already simplifies comparisons like this, but when
it's exactly zero and -1, the operand sorting ends up reversed
and the pattern fails to match. Handle that special case.
Follow up for rdar://14689217
llvm-svn: 188512
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
intersection of the LHS and RHS ConstantRanges and return "false" when
the range is empty.
This simplifies some code and catches some extra cases.
llvm-svn: 126744
Roman Lebedev