Commit Graph

506 Commits

Author SHA1 Message Date
Sanjay Patel 398728732e [InstSimplify] add tests for undef + partial undef constant folding; NFC
These tests should probably go under a separate test file because they
should fold with just -constprop, but they're similar to the scalar
tests already in here.

llvm-svn: 348045
2018-11-30 22:51:34 +00:00
Sanjay Patel d802270808 [InstSimplify] fold select with implied condition
This is an almost direct move of the functionality from InstCombine to 
InstSimplify. There's no reason not to do this in InstSimplify because 
we never create a new value with this transform.

(There's a question of whether any dominance-based transform belongs in
either of these passes, but that's a separate issue.)

I've changed 1 of the conditions for the fold (1 of the blocks for the 
branch must be the block we started with) into an assert because I'm not 
sure how that could ever be false.

We need 1 extra check to make sure that the instruction itself is in a
basic block because passes other than InstCombine may be using InstSimplify
as an analysis on values that are not wired up yet.

The 3-way compare changes show that InstCombine has some kind of 
phase-ordering hole. Otherwise, we would have already gotten the intended
final result that we now show here.

llvm-svn: 347896
2018-11-29 18:44:39 +00:00
Sanjay Patel 14ab9170b8 [InstSimplify] fold funnel shifts with undef operands
Splitting these off from the D54666.

Patch by: nikic (Nikita Popov)

llvm-svn: 347332
2018-11-20 17:34:59 +00:00
Sanjay Patel 2778f56a40 [InstSimplify] add tests for funnel shift with undef operands; NFC
These are part of D54666, so adding them here before the patch to
show the baseline (currently unoptimized) results.

Patch by: @nikic (Nikita Popov)

llvm-svn: 347331
2018-11-20 17:30:09 +00:00
Sanjay Patel eea21da12a [InstructionSimplify] Add support for saturating add/sub
Add support for saturating add/sub in InstructionSimplify. In particular, the following simplifications are supported:

    sat(X + 0) -> X
    sat(X + undef) -> -1
    sat(X uadd MAX) -> MAX
    (and commutative variants)

    sat(X - 0) -> X
    sat(X - X) -> 0
    sat(X - undef) -> 0
    sat(undef - X) -> 0
    sat(0 usub X) -> 0
    sat(X usub MAX) -> 0

Patch by: @nikic (Nikita Popov)

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D54532

llvm-svn: 347330
2018-11-20 17:20:26 +00:00
Sanjay Patel f5ead29b78 [PatternMatch] Handle undef vectors consistently
This patch fixes the issue noticed in D54532. 
The problem is that cst_pred_ty-based matchers like m_Zero() currently do not match 
scalar undefs (as expected), but *do* match vector undefs. This may lead to optimization 
inconsistencies in rare cases.

There is only one existing test for which output changes, reverting the change from D53205. 
The reason here is that vector fsub undef, %x is no longer matched as an m_FNeg(). While I 
think that the new output is technically worse than the previous one, it is consistent with 
scalar, and I don't think it's really important either way (generally that undef should have 
been folded away prior to reassociation.)

I've also added another test case for this issue based on InstructionSimplify. It took some 
effort to find that one, as in most cases undef folds are either checked first -- and in the 
cases where they aren't it usually happens to not make a difference in the end. This is the 
only case I was able to come up with. Prior to this patch the test case simplified to undef 
in the scalar case, but zeroinitializer in the vector case.

Patch by: @nikic (Nikita Popov)

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D54631

llvm-svn: 347318
2018-11-20 16:08:19 +00:00
Sanjay Patel f967328e24 [InstSimplify] add tests for saturating add/sub; NFC
These are baseline tests for D54532.
Patch based on the original tests by:
@nikic (Nikita Popov)

llvm-svn: 347060
2018-11-16 16:32:34 +00:00
Sanjay Patel 5ebd2a785e [InstSimplify] add test to demonstrate undef matching differences; NFC
This is a baseline test for D54631.
Patch by:
@nikic (Nikita Popov)

llvm-svn: 347055
2018-11-16 15:35:58 +00:00
Sanjay Patel e98ec77a95 [InstSimplify] delete shift-of-zero guard ops around funnel shifts
This is a problem seen in common rotate idioms as noted in:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=34924

Note that we are not canonicalizing standard IR (shifts and logic) to the intrinsics yet. 
(Although I've written this before...) I think this is the last step before we enable 
that transform. Ie, we could regress code by doing that transform without this 
simplification in place.

In PR34924, I questioned whether this is a valid transform for target-independent IR, 
but I convinced myself this is ok. If we're speculating a funnel shift by turning cmp+br 
into select, then SimplifyCFG has already determined that the transform is justified. 
It's possible that SimplifyCFG is not taking into account profile or other metadata, 
but if that's true, then it's a bug independent of funnel shifts.

Also, we do have CGP code to restore a guard like this around an intrinsic if it can't 
be lowered cheaply. But that isn't necessary for funnel shift because the default 
expansion in SelectionDAGBuilder includes this same cmp+select.

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D54552

llvm-svn: 346960
2018-11-15 14:53:37 +00:00
Sanjay Patel 4832ffee39 [InstSimplify] add more tests for funnel shift with select; NFC
The cases are just different enough that we should have 
complete tests to avoid bugs from typos in the code.

llvm-svn: 346902
2018-11-14 22:34:25 +00:00
Sanjay Patel 7d028670f6 [InstSimplify] add tests for funnel shift with select; NFC
llvm-svn: 346881
2018-11-14 19:12:54 +00:00
Sanjay Patel 1440107821 [InstSimplify] fold select (fcmp X, Y), X, Y
This is NFCI for InstCombine because it calls InstSimplify, 
so I left the tests for this transform there. As noted in
the code comment, we can allow this fold more often by using
FMF and/or value tracking.

llvm-svn: 346169
2018-11-05 21:51:39 +00:00
Sanjay Patel 72c2d355b7 [InstSimplify] add tests for select+fcmp; NFC
These are translated from InstCombine's test file with the same name.
We should move the transform from InstCombine to InstSimplify.

llvm-svn: 346168
2018-11-05 21:42:01 +00:00
Sanjay Patel 746ebb4ee8 [InstSimplify] fold icmp based on range of abs/nabs (2nd try)
This is retrying the fold from rL345717 
(reverted at rL347780)
...with a fix for the miscompile
demonstrated by PR39510:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=39510

Original commit message:

This is a fix for PR39475:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=39475

We managed to get some of these patterns using computeKnownBits in https://reviews.llvm.org/D47041, but that
can't be used for nabs(). Instead, put in some range-based logic, so we can fold
both abs/nabs with icmp with a constant value.

Alive proofs:
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/21r

Name: abs_nsw_is_positive

  %cmp = icmp slt i32 %x, 0
  %negx = sub nsw i32 0, %x
  %abs = select i1 %cmp, i32 %negx, i32 %x
  %r = icmp sgt i32 %abs, -1
    =>
  %r = i1 true


Name: abs_nsw_is_not_negative

  %cmp = icmp slt i32 %x, 0
  %negx = sub nsw i32 0, %x
  %abs = select i1 %cmp, i32 %negx, i32 %x
  %r = icmp slt i32 %abs, 0
    =>
  %r = i1 false


Name: nabs_is_negative_or_0

  %cmp = icmp slt i32 %x, 0
  %negx = sub i32 0, %x
  %nabs = select i1 %cmp, i32 %x, i32 %negx
  %r = icmp slt i32 %nabs, 1
    =>
  %r = i1 true

Name: nabs_is_not_over_0

  %cmp = icmp slt i32 %x, 0
  %negx = sub i32 0, %x
  %nabs = select i1 %cmp, i32 %x, i32 %negx
  %r = icmp sgt i32 %nabs, 0
    =>
  %r = i1 false

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D53844

llvm-svn: 345832
2018-11-01 14:07:39 +00:00
Sanjay Patel 056807b01e [InstSimplify] add tests for icmp fold bug (PR39510); NFC
Verify that set intersection/subset are not confused.

llvm-svn: 345831
2018-11-01 14:03:22 +00:00
Sanjay Patel 72fe03f93b revert rL345717 : [InstSimplify] fold icmp based on range of abs/nabs
This can miscompile as shown in PR39510:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=39510

llvm-svn: 345780
2018-10-31 21:37:40 +00:00
Sanjay Patel d4dc30c20d [InstSimplify] fold 'fcmp nnan ult X, 0.0' when X is not negative
This is the inverted case for the transform added with D53874 / rL345725.

llvm-svn: 345728
2018-10-31 15:35:46 +00:00
Sanjay Patel 85cba3b6fb [InstSimplify] fold 'fcmp nnan oge X, 0.0' when X is not negative
This re-raises some of the open questions about how to apply and use fast-math-flags in IR from PR38086:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=38086
...but given the current implementation (no FMF on casts), this is likely the only way to predicate the 
transform.

This is part of solving PR39475:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=39475

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D53874

llvm-svn: 345725
2018-10-31 14:57:23 +00:00
Sanjay Patel 1cd9917edf [InstSimplify] add tests for fcmp and known positive; NFC
llvm-svn: 345722
2018-10-31 14:29:21 +00:00
Sanjay Patel 2efccd2cf2 [InstSimplify] fold icmp based on range of abs/nabs
This is a fix for PR39475:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=39475

We managed to get some of these patterns using computeKnownBits in D47041, but that 
can't be used for nabs(). Instead, put in some range-based logic, so we can fold 
both abs/nabs with icmp with a constant value.

Alive proofs:
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/21r

Name: abs_nsw_is_positive
  %cmp = icmp slt i32 %x, 0
  %negx = sub nsw i32 0, %x
  %abs = select i1 %cmp, i32 %negx, i32 %x
  %r = icmp sgt i32 %abs, -1
    =>
  %r = i1 true
 
Name: abs_nsw_is_not_negative
  %cmp = icmp slt i32 %x, 0
  %negx = sub nsw i32 0, %x
  %abs = select i1 %cmp, i32 %negx, i32 %x
  %r = icmp slt i32 %abs, 0
    =>
  %r = i1 false
 
Name: nabs_is_negative_or_0
  %cmp = icmp slt i32 %x, 0
  %negx = sub i32 0, %x
  %nabs = select i1 %cmp, i32 %x, i32 %negx
  %r = icmp slt i32 %nabs, 1
    =>
  %r = i1 true

Name: nabs_is_not_over_0
  %cmp = icmp slt i32 %x, 0
  %negx = sub i32 0, %x
  %nabs = select i1 %cmp, i32 %x, i32 %negx
  %r = icmp sgt i32 %nabs, 0
    =>
  %r = i1 false

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D53844

llvm-svn: 345717
2018-10-31 13:25:10 +00:00
Sanjay Patel bcde5afcac [InstSimplify] add tests for fcmp folds; NFC
This is part of a problem noted in PR39475:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=39475

llvm-svn: 345615
2018-10-30 16:58:43 +00:00
Sanjay Patel 33603198f2 [InstSimplify] add tests for abs/nabs+icmp folding; NFC
llvm-svn: 345541
2018-10-29 21:05:41 +00:00
Thomas Lively c339250e12 [InstCombine] InstCombine and InstSimplify for minimum and maximum
Summary: Depends on D52765

Reviewers: aheejin, dschuff

Subscribers: llvm-commits

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D52766

llvm-svn: 344799
2018-10-19 19:01:26 +00:00
Sanjay Patel ce3f1915f3 [InstCombine] move/add tests for sub/neg; NFC
These should all be handled using "dyn_castNegVal",
but that misses vectors with undef elements.

llvm-svn: 344790
2018-10-19 17:26:22 +00:00
Cameron McInally bea5967e8c [FPEnv] PatternMatcher support for checking FNEG ignoring signed zeros
https://reviews.llvm.org/D52934

llvm-svn: 344084
2018-10-09 21:48:00 +00:00
Sanjay Patel 01daf62a0d [InstSimplify] add vector test for fneg+fdiv; NFC
This should be fixed with D52934.

llvm-svn: 343936
2018-10-07 14:46:33 +00:00
Sanjay Patel f3ae9cc33e [InstSimplify] use isKnownNeverNaN to fold more fcmp ord/uno
Remove duplicate tests from InstCombine that were added with
D50582. I left negative tests there to verify that nothing
in InstCombine tries to go overboard. If isKnownNeverNaN is
improved to handle the FP binops or other cases, we should
have coverage under InstSimplify, so we could remove more
duplicate tests from InstCombine at that time.

llvm-svn: 340279
2018-08-21 14:45:13 +00:00
Sanjay Patel 6bb09a4291 [InstSimplify] add tests for FP uno/ord with nnan; NFC
This is a slight modification of the tests from D50582;
change half of the predicates to 'uno' so we have coverage
for that side too. All of the positive tests can fold to a
constant (true/false), so that should happen in instsimplify.

llvm-svn: 340276
2018-08-21 13:33:13 +00:00
Sanjay Patel c6944f795d [InstSimplify] move minnum/maxnum with Inf folds from instcombine
llvm-svn: 339396
2018-08-09 22:20:44 +00:00
Sanjay Patel 9b07347033 [InstSimplify] fold fsub+fadd with common operand
llvm-svn: 339176
2018-08-07 20:32:55 +00:00
Sanjay Patel 4364d604c2 [InstSimplify] fold fadd+fsub with common operand
llvm-svn: 339174
2018-08-07 20:23:49 +00:00
Sanjay Patel f7a8fb2dee [InstSimplify] fold fsub+fsub with common operand
llvm-svn: 339171
2018-08-07 20:14:27 +00:00
Sanjay Patel 50976393ed [InstSimplify] add tests for fadd/fsub; NFC
Instcombine gets some, but not all, of these cases via
it's internal reassociation transforms. It fails in
all cases with vector types.

llvm-svn: 339168
2018-08-07 19:49:13 +00:00
Sanjay Patel 948ff87d7d [InstSimplify] move minnum/maxnum with common op fold from instcombine
llvm-svn: 339144
2018-08-07 14:36:27 +00:00
Sanjay Patel b06d283909 [InstSimplify] add tests for minnum/maxnum with shared op; NFC
llvm-svn: 339142
2018-08-07 14:13:40 +00:00
Sanjay Patel b802d18df7 [InstSimplify] move misplaced minnum/maxnum tests; NFC
llvm-svn: 339141
2018-08-07 14:12:08 +00:00
Matt Arsenault 56b31d8d75 ValueTracking: Handle canonicalize in CannotBeNegativeZero
Also fix apparently missing test coverage for any of the
handling here.

llvm-svn: 339023
2018-08-06 15:16:26 +00:00
Hiroshi Inoue 73f8b255b6 [InstSimplify] fold extracting from std::pair (2/2)
This is the second patch of the series which intends to enable jump threading for an inlined method whose return type is std::pair<int, bool> or std::pair<bool, int>. 
The first patch is https://reviews.llvm.org/rL338485.

This patch handles code sequences that merges two values using `shl` and `or`, then extracts one value using `and`.

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D49981

llvm-svn: 338817
2018-08-03 05:39:48 +00:00
Sanjay Patel 3f6e9a71f7 [InstSimplify] move minnum/maxnum with undef fold from instcombine
llvm-svn: 338719
2018-08-02 14:33:40 +00:00
Sanjay Patel f9a0d593e9 [ValueTracking] fix maxnum miscompile for cannotBeOrderedLessThanZero (PR37776)
This adds the NAN checks suggested in PR37776:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=37776

If both operands to maxnum are NAN, that should get constant folded, so we don't 
have to handle that case. This is the same assumption as other FP ops in this
function. Returning 'false' is always conservatively correct.

Copying from the bug report:

Currently, we have this for "when is cannotBeOrderedLessThanZero 
(mustBePositiveOrNaN) true for maxnum":
               L
        -------------------
        | Pos | Neg | NaN |
   ------------------------
   |Pos |  x  |  x  |  x  |
   ------------------------
 R |Neg |  x  |     |  x  |
   ------------------------
   |NaN |  x  |  x  |  x  |
   ------------------------


The cases with (Neg & NaN) are wrong. We should have:

                L
        -------------------
        | Pos | Neg | NaN |
   ------------------------
   |Pos |  x  |  x  |  x  |
   ------------------------
 R |Neg |  x  |     |     |
   ------------------------
   |NaN |  x  |     |  x  |
   ------------------------

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D50081

llvm-svn: 338716
2018-08-02 13:46:20 +00:00
Sanjay Patel 28c7e41c09 [InstSimplify] move minnum/maxnum with same arg fold from instcombine
llvm-svn: 338652
2018-08-01 23:05:55 +00:00
Hiroshi Inoue 02f79eae06 [InstSimplify] fold extracting from std::pair (1/2)
This patch intends to enable jump threading when a method whose return type is std::pair<int, bool> or std::pair<bool, int> is inlined.
For example, jump threading does not happen for the if statement in func.

std::pair<int, bool> callee(int v) {
  int a = dummy(v);
  if (a) return std::make_pair(dummy(v), true);
  else return std::make_pair(v, v < 0);
}

int func(int v) {
  std::pair<int, bool> rc = callee(v);
  if (rc.second) {
    // do something
  }

SROA executed before the method inlining replaces std::pair by i64 without splitting in both callee and func since at this point no access to the individual fields is seen to SROA.
After inlining, jump threading fails to identify that the incoming value is a constant due to additional instructions (like or, and, trunc).

This series of patch add patterns in InstructionSimplify to fold extraction of members of std::pair. To help jump threading, actually we need to optimize the code sequence spanning multiple BBs.
These patches does not handle phi by itself, but these additional patterns help NewGVN pass, which calls instsimplify to check opportunities for simplifying instructions over phi, apply phi-of-ops optimization to result in successful jump threading. 
SimplifyDemandedBits in InstCombine, can do more general optimization but this patch aims to provide opportunities for other optimizers by supporting a simple but common case in InstSimplify.

This first patch in the series handles code sequences that merges two values using shl and or and then extracts one value using lshr.

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D48828

llvm-svn: 338485
2018-08-01 04:40:32 +00:00
David Bolvansky 16d8a69b90 [InstSimplify] Fold another Select with And/Or pattern
Summary: Proof: https://rise4fun.com/Alive/L5J

Reviewers: lebedev.ri, spatel

Reviewed By: spatel

Subscribers: llvm-commits

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D49975

llvm-svn: 338383
2018-07-31 14:17:15 +00:00
Hiroshi Inoue 2f6769be60 [InstSimplify] tests for D48828, D49981: fold extraction from std::pair
Minor touch up in the previous comment.

llvm-svn: 338351
2018-07-31 05:29:20 +00:00
Hiroshi Inoue 5427d3efc2 [InstSimplify] tests for D48828, D49981: fold extraction from std::pair
Updated unit tests for D48828 and D49981.

llvm-svn: 338350
2018-07-31 05:10:36 +00:00
David Bolvansky 76e95865f3 [InstSimplify] [NFC] Tests for Select with AND/OR fold
llvm-svn: 338285
2018-07-30 18:22:18 +00:00
Sanjay Patel 54421ce918 [InstSimplify] fold funnel shifts with 0-shift amount
llvm-svn: 338218
2018-07-29 16:36:38 +00:00
Sanjay Patel 46af5835af [InstSimplify] add tests for funnel shift intrinsics; NFC
llvm-svn: 338217
2018-07-29 16:27:17 +00:00
David Bolvansky 9800b710c2 [InstSimplify] Moved Select + AND/OR tests from InstCombine
Subscribers: llvm-commits

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D49957

llvm-svn: 338195
2018-07-28 13:52:45 +00:00
Hiroshi Inoue eeab694cea [InstSimplify] tests for D48828: fold extraction from std::pair
This commit includes unit tests for D48828, which enhances InstSimplify to enable jump threading with a method whose return type is std::pair<int, bool> or std::pair<bool, int>.
I am going to commit the actual transformation later.

llvm-svn: 338107
2018-07-27 07:21:02 +00:00