Original commit message:
Defer some shl transforms to DAGCombine.
The shl instruction is used to represent multiplication by a constant
power of two as well as bitwise left shifts. Some InstCombine
transformations would turn an shl instruction into a bit mask operation,
making it difficult for later analysis passes to recognize the
constsnt multiplication.
Disable those shl transformations, deferring them to DAGCombine time.
An 'shl X, C' instruction is now treated mostly the same was as 'mul X, C'.
These transformations are deferred:
(X >>? C) << C --> X & (-1 << C) (When X >> C has multiple uses)
(X >>? C1) << C2 --> X << (C2-C1) & (-1 << C2) (When C2 > C1)
(X >>? C1) << C2 --> X >>? (C1-C2) & (-1 << C2) (When C1 > C2)
The corresponding exact transformations are preserved, just like
div-exact + mul:
(X >>?,exact C) << C --> X
(X >>?,exact C1) << C2 --> X << (C2-C1)
(X >>?,exact C1) << C2 --> X >>?,exact (C1-C2)
The disabled transformations could also prevent the instruction selector
from recognizing rotate patterns in hash functions and cryptographic
primitives. I have a test case for that, but it is too fragile.
llvm-svn: 155362
While the patch was perfect and defect free, it exposed a really nasty
bug in X86 SelectionDAG that caused an llc crash when compiling lencod.
I'll put the patch back in after fixing the SelectionDAG problem.
llvm-svn: 155181
The shl instruction is used to represent multiplication by a constant
power of two as well as bitwise left shifts. Some InstCombine
transformations would turn an shl instruction into a bit mask operation,
making it difficult for later analysis passes to recognize the
constsnt multiplication.
Disable those shl transformations, deferring them to DAGCombine time.
An 'shl X, C' instruction is now treated mostly the same was as 'mul X, C'.
These transformations are deferred:
(X >>? C) << C --> X & (-1 << C) (When X >> C has multiple uses)
(X >>? C1) << C2 --> X << (C2-C1) & (-1 << C2) (When C2 > C1)
(X >>? C1) << C2 --> X >>? (C1-C2) & (-1 << C2) (When C1 > C2)
The corresponding exact transformations are preserved, just like
div-exact + mul:
(X >>?,exact C) << C --> X
(X >>?,exact C1) << C2 --> X << (C2-C1)
(X >>?,exact C1) << C2 --> X >>?,exact (C1-C2)
The disabled transformations could also prevent the instruction selector
from recognizing rotate patterns in hash functions and cryptographic
primitives. I have a test case for that, but it is too fragile.
llvm-svn: 155136
Jakub Staszak