Make InstSimplify return poison rather than undef for out-of-bounds
shifts, as specified by LandRef:
> If op2 is (statically or dynamically) equal to or larger than the
> number of bits in op1, this instruction returns a poison value.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D93998
No changes relative to last time, but after a mitigation for
an AMDGPU regression landed.
---
If SimplifyInstruction() does not succeed in simplifying the
instruction, it will compute the known bits of the instruction
in the hope that all bits are known and the instruction can be
folded to a constant. I have removed a similar optimization
from InstCombine in D75801, and would like to drop this one as well.
On average, we spend ~1% of total compile-time performing this
known bits calculation. However, if we introduce some additional
statistics for known bits computations and how many of them succeed
in simplifying the instruction we get (on test-suite):
instsimplify.NumKnownBits: 216
instsimplify.NumKnownBitsComputed: 13828375
valuetracking.NumKnownBitsComputed: 45860806
Out of ~14M known bits calculations (accounting for approximately
one third of all known bits calculations), only 0.0015% succeed in
producing a constant. Those cases where we do succeed to compute
all known bits will get folded by other passes like InstCombine
later. On test-suite, only lencod.test and GCC-C-execute-pr44858.test
show a hash difference after this change. On lencod we see an
improvement (a loop phi is optimized away), on the GCC torture
test a regression (a function return value is determined only
after IPSCCP, preventing propagation from a noinline function.)
There are various regressions in InstSimplify tests. However, all
of these cases are already handled by InstCombine, and corresponding
tests have already been added there.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D79294
If SimplifyInstruction() does not succeed in simplifying the
instruction, it will compute the known bits of the instruction
in the hope that all bits are known and the instruction can be
folded to a constant. I have removed a similar optimization
from InstCombine in D75801, and would like to drop this one as well.
On average, we spend ~1% of total compile-time performing this
known bits calculation. However, if we introduce some additional
statistics for known bits computations and how many of them succeed
in simplifying the instruction we get (on test-suite):
instsimplify.NumKnownBits: 216
instsimplify.NumKnownBitsComputed: 13828375
valuetracking.NumKnownBitsComputed: 45860806
Out of ~14M known bits calculations (accounting for approximately
one third of all known bits calculations), only 0.0015% succeed in
producing a constant. Those cases where we do succeed to compute
all known bits will get folded by other passes like InstCombine
later. On test-suite, only lencod.test and GCC-C-execute-pr44858.test
show a hash difference after this change. On lencod we see an
improvement (a loop phi is optimized away), on the GCC torture
test a regression (a function return value is determined only
after IPSCCP, preventing propagation from a noinline function.)
There are various regressions in InstSimplify tests. However, all
of these cases are already handled by InstCombine, and corresponding
tests have already been added there.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D79294
As it's causing some bot failures (and per request from kbarton).
This reverts commit r358543/ab70da07286e618016e78247e4a24fcb84077fda.
llvm-svn: 358546
Do simplifications common to all shift instructions based on the amount shifted:
1. If the shift amount is known larger than the bitwidth, the result is undefined.
2. If the valid bits of the shift amount are all known to be 0, it's a shift by zero, so the shift operand is the result.
Note that we could generalize the shift-by-zero transform into a shift-by-constant if all of the valid bits in the shift
amount are known, but that would have to be done in InstCombine rather than here because it would mean we need to create
a new shift instruction.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D19874
llvm-svn: 269114
Nikita Popov