Normalize
select(C0, select(C1, a, b), b) -> select((C0 & C1), a, b)
select(C0, a, select(C1, a, b)) -> select((C0 | C1), a, b)
This normal form may enable further combines on the And/Or and shortens
paths for the values. Many targets prefer the other but can go back
easily in CodeGen.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D7399
llvm-svn: 228409
This patches fixes a miscompile where we were assuming that loading from null is undefined and thus we could assume it doesn't happen. This transform is perfectly legal in address space 0, but is not neccessarily legal in other address spaces.
We really should introduce a hook to control this property on a per target per address space basis. We may be loosing valuable optimizations in some address spaces by being too conservative.
Original patch by Thomas P Raoux (submitted to llvm-commits), tests and formatting fixes by me.
llvm-svn: 224961
This restores our ability to optimize:
(X & C) ? X & ~C : X into X & ~C
(X & C) ? X : X & ~C into X
(X & C) ? X | C : X into X
(X & C) ? X : X | C into X | C
llvm-svn: 222868
This reverts commit r210006, it miscompiled libapr which is used in who
knows how many projects.
A test has been added to ensure that we don't regress again.
I'll work on a rewrite of what the optimization was trying to do later.
llvm-svn: 222856
stored rather than the pointer type.
This change is analogous to r220138 which changed the canonicalization
for loads. The rationale is the same: memory does not have a type,
operations (and thus the values they produce) have a type. We should
match that type as closely as possible rather than reading some form of
semantics into the pointer type.
With this change, loads and stores should no longer be made with
nonsensical types for the values that tehy load and store. This is
particularly important when trying to match specific loaded and stored
types in the process of doing other instcombines, which is what led me
down this twisty maze of miscanonicalization.
I've put quite some effort into looking through IR to find places where
LLVM's optimizer was being unreasonably conservative in the face of
mismatched load and store types, however it is possible (let's say,
likely!) I have missed some. If you see regressions here, or from
r220138, the likely cause is some part of LLVM failing to cope with load
and store types differing. Test cases appreciated, it is important that
we root all of these out of LLVM.
llvm-svn: 222748
clearly only exactly equal width ptrtoint and inttoptr casts are no-op
casts, it says so right there in the langref. Make the code agree.
Original log from r220277:
Teach the load analysis to allow finding available values which require
inttoptr or ptrtoint cast provided there is datalayout available.
Eventually, the datalayout can just be required but in practice it will
always be there today.
To go with the ability to expose available values requiring a ptrtoint
or inttoptr cast, helpers are added to perform one of these three casts.
These smarts are necessary to finish canonicalizing loads and stores to
the operational type requirements without regressing fundamental
combines.
I've added some test cases. These should actually improve as the load
combining and store combining improves, but they may fundamentally be
highlighting some missing combines for select in addition to exercising
the specific added logic to load analysis.
llvm-svn: 222739
inttoptr or ptrtoint cast provided there is datalayout available.
Eventually, the datalayout can just be required but in practice it will
always be there today.
To go with the ability to expose available values requiring a ptrtoint
or inttoptr cast, helpers are added to perform one of these three casts.
These smarts are necessary to finish canonicalizing loads and stores to
the operational type requirements without regressing fundamental
combines.
I've added some test cases. These should actually improve as the load
combining and store combining improves, but they may fundamentally be
highlighting some missing combines for select in addition to exercising
the specific added logic to load analysis.
llvm-svn: 220277
logic to look through pointer casts, making them trivially stronger in
the face of loads and stores with intervening pointer casts.
I've included a few test cases that demonstrate the kind of folding
instcombine can do without pointer casts and then variations which
obfuscate the logic through bitcasts. Without this patch, the variations
all fail to optimize fully.
This is more important now than it has been in the past as I've started
moving the load canonicialization to more closely follow the value type
requirements rather than the pointer type requirements and thus this
needs to be prepared for more pointer casts. When I made the same change
to stores several test cases regressed without logic along these lines
so I wanted to systematically improve matters first.
llvm-svn: 220178
of InstCombine rather than just the bits enabled when datalayout is
optional.
The primary fixes here are because now things are little endian.
In good news, silliness like this seems like it will be going away as
we've got pretty stong consensus on dropping optional datalayout
entirely.
llvm-svn: 220176
by my refactoring of this code.
The method isSafeToLoadUnconditionally assumes that the load will
proceed with the preferred type alignment. Given that, it has to ensure
that the alloca or global is at least that aligned. It has always done
this historically when a datalayout is present, but has never checked it
when the datalayout is absent. When I refactored the code in r220156,
I exposed this path when datalayout was present and that turned the
latent bug into a patent bug.
This fixes the issue by just removing the special case which allows
folding things without datalayout. This isn't worth the complexity of
trying to tease apart when it is or isn't safe without actually knowing
the preferred alignment.
llvm-svn: 220161
Summary:
As a starting step, we only use one simple heuristic: if the sign bits
of both a and b are zero, we can prove "add a, b" do not unsigned
overflow, and thus convert it to "add nuw a, b".
Updated all affected tests and added two new tests (@zero_sign_bit and
@zero_sign_bit2) in AddOverflow.ll
Test Plan: make check-all
Reviewers: eliben, rafael, meheff, chandlerc
Reviewed By: chandlerc
Subscribers: chandlerc, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D4144
llvm-svn: 211084
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
if ((x & C) == 0) x |= C becomes x |= C
if ((x & C) != 0) x ^= C becomes x &= ~C
if ((x & C) == 0) x ^= C becomes x |= C
if ((x & C) != 0) x &= ~C becomes x &= ~C
if ((x & C) == 0) x &= ~C becomes nothing
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D3777
llvm-svn: 210006
if ((x & C) == 0) x |= C becomes x |= C
if ((x & C) != 0) x ^= C becomes x &= ~C
if ((x & C) == 0) x ^= C becomes x |= C
if ((x & C) != 0) x &= ~C becomes x &= ~C
if ((x & C) == 0) x &= ~C becomes nothing
Z3 Verifications code for above transform
http://rise4fun.com/Z3/Pmsh
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D3717
llvm-svn: 208848
Currently foldSelectICmpAndOr asserts if the "or" involves a vector
containing several of the same power of two. We can easily avoid this by
only performing the fold on integer types, like foldSelectICmpAnd does.
Fixes <rdar://problem/15012516>
llvm-svn: 191552
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
This fixes the optimization introduced in r179748 and reverted in r179750.
While the optimization was sound, it did not properly respect differences in
bit-width.
llvm-svn: 180777
removes one use of X which helps it pass the many hasOneUse() checks.
In my analysis, this turns up very often where X = A >>exact B and that can't be
simplified unless X has one use (except by increasing the lifetime of A which is
generally a performance loss).
llvm-svn: 128373
a select. A vector select is pairwise on each element so we'd need a new
condition with the right number of elements to select on. Fixes PR8994.
llvm-svn: 123963
X = sext x; x >s c ? X : C+1 --> X = sext x; X <s C+1 ? C+1 : X
X = sext x; x <s c ? X : C-1 --> X = sext x; X >s C-1 ? C-1 : X
X = zext x; x >u c ? X : C+1 --> X = zext x; X <u C+1 ? C+1 : X
X = zext x; x <u c ? X : C-1 --> X = zext x; X >u C-1 ? C-1 : X
X = sext x; x >u c ? X : C+1 --> X = sext x; X <u C+1 ? C+1 : X
X = sext x; x <u c ? X : C-1 --> X = sext x; X >u C-1 ? C-1 : X
Instead of calculating this with mixed types promote all to the
larger type. This enables scalar evolution to analyze this
expression. PR8866
llvm-svn: 123034
(x & 2^n) ? 2^m+C : C
we can offset both arms by C to get the "(x & 2^n) ? 2^m : 0" form, optimize the
select to a shift and apply the offset afterwards.
llvm-svn: 121609
SimplifyAssociativeOrCommutative) "(A op C1) op C2" -> "A op (C1 op C2)",
which previously was only done if C1 and C2 were constants, to occur whenever
"C1 op C2" simplifies (a la InstructionSimplify). Since the simplifying operand
combination can no longer be assumed to be the right-hand terms, consider all of
the possible permutations. When compiling "gcc as one big file", transform 2
(i.e. using right-hand operands) fires about 4000 times but it has to be said
that most of the time the simplifying operands are both constants. Transforms
3, 4 and 5 each fired once. Transform 6, which is an existing transform that
I didn't change, never fired. With this change, the testcase is now optimized
perfectly with one run of instcombine (previously it required instcombine +
reassociate + instcombine, and it may just have been luck that this worked).
llvm-svn: 119002
nodes can be used in loops, this could result in infinite looping
if there is no recursion limit, so add such a limit. It is also
used for the SelectInst case because in theory there could be an
infinite loop there too if the basic block is unreachable.
llvm-svn: 118694
Matthias Braun