consider:
long long *f(long long *b, long long *e) {
return b + (e - b);
}
we would lower this to something like:
define i64* @f(i64* %b, i64* %e) {
%1 = ptrtoint i64* %e to i64
%2 = ptrtoint i64* %b to i64
%3 = sub i64 %1, %2
%4 = ashr exact i64 %3, 3
%5 = getelementptr inbounds i64* %b, i64 %4
ret i64* %5
}
This should fold away to just 'e'.
N.B. This adds m_SpecificInt as a convenient way to match against a
particular 64-bit integer when using LLVM's match interface.
llvm-svn: 216439
If the NUW bit is set for 0 - Y, we know that all values for Y other
than 0 would produce a poison value. This allows us to replace (0 - Y)
with 0 in the expression (X - (0 - Y)) which will ultimately leave us
with X.
This partially fixes PR20189.
llvm-svn: 214384
Earlier when the code was in InstCombine, we were calling the version of ComputeNumSignBits in InstCombine.h
that automatically added the DataLayout* before calling into ValueTracking.
When the code moved to InstSimplify, we are calling into ValueTracking directly without passing in the DataLayout*.
This patch rectifies the same by passing DataLayout in ComputeNumSignBits.
llvm-svn: 213295
Refactor code, no functionality change, test case moved from instcombine to instsimplify.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D4102
llvm-svn: 213231
Determining the bounds of x/ -1 would start off with us dividing it by
INT_MIN. Suffice to say, this would not work very well.
Instead, handle it upfront by checking for -1 and mapping it to the
range: [INT_MIN + 1, INT_MAX. This means that the result of our
division can be any value other than INT_MIN.
llvm-svn: 212981
Summary:
When calculating the upper bound of X / -8589934592, we would perform
the following calculation: Floor[INT_MAX / 8589934592]
However, flooring the result would make us wrongly come to the
conclusion that 1073741824 was not in the set of possible values.
Instead, use the ceiling of the result.
Reviewers: nicholas
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D4502
llvm-svn: 212976
When INT_MIN is the numerator in a sdiv, we would not properly handle
overflow when calculating the bounds of possible values; abs(INT_MIN) is
not a meaningful number.
Instead, check and handle INT_MIN by reasoning that the largest value is
INT_MIN/-2 and the smallest value is INT_MIN.
This fixes PR20199.
llvm-svn: 212307
Summary:
Analyze the range of values produced by ashr/lshr cst, %V when it is
being used in an icmp.
Reviewers: nicholas
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D3774
llvm-svn: 209000
Summary:
The dividend in an sdiv tells us the largest and smallest possible
results. Use this fact to optimize comparisons against an sdiv with a
constant dividend.
Reviewers: nicholas
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D3795
llvm-svn: 208999
definition below all the header #include lines, lib/Analysis/...
edition.
This one has a bit extra as there were *other* #define's before #include
lines in addition to DEBUG_TYPE. I've sunk all of them as a block.
llvm-svn: 206843
This requires a number of steps.
1) Move value_use_iterator into the Value class as an implementation
detail
2) Change it to actually be a *Use* iterator rather than a *User*
iterator.
3) Add an adaptor which is a User iterator that always looks through the
Use to the User.
4) Wrap these in Value::use_iterator and Value::user_iterator typedefs.
5) Add the range adaptors as Value::uses() and Value::users().
6) Update *all* of the callers to correctly distinguish between whether
they wanted a use_iterator (and to explicitly dig out the User when
needed), or a user_iterator which makes the Use itself totally
opaque.
Because #6 requires churning essentially everything that walked the
Use-Def chains, I went ahead and added all of the range adaptors and
switched them to range-based loops where appropriate. Also because the
renaming requires at least churning every line of code, it didn't make
any sense to split these up into multiple commits -- all of which would
touch all of the same lies of code.
The result is still not quite optimal. The Value::use_iterator is a nice
regular iterator, but Value::user_iterator is an iterator over User*s
rather than over the User objects themselves. As a consequence, it fits
a bit awkwardly into the range-based world and it has the weird
extra-dereferencing 'operator->' that so many of our iterators have.
I think this could be fixed by providing something which transforms
a range of T&s into a range of T*s, but that *can* be separated into
another patch, and it isn't yet 100% clear whether this is the right
move.
However, this change gets us most of the benefit and cleans up
a substantial amount of code around Use and User. =]
llvm-svn: 203364
a bit surprising, as the class is almost entirely abstracted away from
any particular IR, however it encodes the comparsion predicates which
mutate ranges as ICmp predicate codes. This is reasonable as they're
used for both instructions and constants. Thus, it belongs in the IR
library with instructions and constants.
llvm-svn: 202838
Move the test for this class into the IR unittests as well.
This uncovers that ValueMap too is in the IR library. Ironically, the
unittest for ValueMap is useless in the Support library (honestly, so
was the ValueHandle test) and so it already lives in the IR unittests.
Mmmm, tasty layering.
llvm-svn: 202821
name might indicate, it is an iterator over the types in an instruction
in the IR.... You see where this is going.
Another step of modularizing the support library.
llvm-svn: 202815
I am really sorry for the noise, but the current state where some parts of the
code use TD (from the old name: TargetData) and other parts use DL makes it
hard to write a patch that changes where those variables come from and how
they are passed along.
llvm-svn: 201827
directory. These passes are already defined in the IR library, and it
doesn't make any sense to have the headers in Analysis.
Long term, I think there is going to be a much better way to divide
these matters. The dominators code should be fully separated into the
abstract graph algorithm and have that put in Support where it becomes
obvious that evn Clang's CFGBlock's can use it. Then the verifier can
manually construct dominance information from the Support-driven
interface while the Analysis library can provide a pass which both
caches, reconstructs, and supports a nice update API.
But those are very long term, and so I don't want to leave the really
confusing structure until that day arrives.
llvm-svn: 199082
subsequent changes are easier to review. About to fix some layering
issues, and wanted to separate out the necessary churn.
Also comment and sink the include of "Windows.h" in three .inc files to
match the usage in Memory.inc.
llvm-svn: 198685
This is safe per C++11 18.6.1.1p3: [operator new returns] a non-null pointer to
suitably aligned storage (3.7.4), or else throw a bad_alloc exception. This
requirement is binding on a replacement version of this function.
Brings us a tiny bit closer to eliminating more vector push_backs.
llvm-svn: 191310
Overflow doesn't affect the correctness of equalities. Computing this is cheap,
we just reuse the computation for the inbounds case and try to peel of more
non-inbounds GEPs. This pattern is unlikely to ever appear in code generated by
Clang, but SCEV occasionally produces it.
llvm-svn: 191200
All libm floating-point rounding functions, except for round(), had their own
ISD nodes. Recent PowerPC cores have an instruction for round(), and so here I'm
adding ISD::FROUND so that round() can be custom lowered as well.
For the most part, this is straightforward. I've added an intrinsic
and a matching ISD node just like those for nearbyint() and friends. The
SelectionDAG pattern I've named frnd (because ISD::FP_ROUND has already claimed
fround).
This will be used by the PowerPC backend in a follow-up commit.
llvm-svn: 187926
Prepare it for vectors of pointers and handle simple cases. We don't handle
complicated cases because accumulateConstantOffset bails on pointer vectors.
Fixes selfhost on i386.
llvm-svn: 174179
remaining use of AliasAnalysis concepts such as isIdentifiedObject to
prove pointer inequality.
@external_compare in test/Transforms/InstSimplify/compare.ll shows a simple
case where a noalias argument can be equal to a global variable address, and
while AliasAnalysis can get away with saying that these pointers don't alias,
instsimplify cannot say that they are not equal.
llvm-svn: 174122
into their new header subdirectory: include/llvm/IR. This matches the
directory structure of lib, and begins to correct a long standing point
of file layout clutter in LLVM.
There are still more header files to move here, but I wanted to handle
them in separate commits to make tracking what files make sense at each
layer easier.
The only really questionable files here are the target intrinsic
tablegen files. But that's a battle I'd rather not fight today.
I've updated both CMake and Makefile build systems (I think, and my
tests think, but I may have missed something).
I've also re-sorted the includes throughout the project. I'll be
committing updates to Clang, DragonEgg, and Polly momentarily.
llvm-svn: 171366
constant folding calls. Add the initial tests for this which show that
now instsimplify can simplify blindingly obvious code patterns expressed
with both intrinsics and library calls.
llvm-svn: 171194
are nice and decomposed so that we can simplify synthesized calls as
easily as actually call instructions. The internal utility still has the
same behavior, it just now operates on a more generic interface so that
I can extend the set of call simplifications that instsimplify knows
about.
llvm-svn: 171189
In a previous thread it was pointed out that isPowerOfTwo is not a very precise
name since it can return false for powers of two if it is unable to show that
they are powers of two.
llvm-svn: 170093
been used in the first place. It simply was passed to the function and to the
recursive invocations. Simply drop the parameter and update the callers for the
new signature.
Patch by Saleem Abdulrasool!
llvm-svn: 169988
fsub X, +0 ==> X
fsub X, -0 ==> X, when we know X is not -0
fsub +/-0.0, (fsub -0.0, X) ==> X
fsub nsz +/-0.0, (fsub +/-0.0, X) ==> X
fsub nnan ninf X, X ==> 0.0
fadd nsz X, 0 ==> X
fadd [nnan ninf] X, (fsub [nnan ninf] 0, X) ==> 0
where nnan and ninf have to occur at least once somewhere in this expression
fmul X, 1.0 ==> X
llvm-svn: 169940
instead of the instruction. I've left a forwarding wrapper for the
instruction so users with the instruction don't need to create
a GEPOperator themselves.
This lets us remove the copy of this code in instsimplify.
I've looked at most of the other copies of similar code, and this is the
only one I've found that is actually exactly the same. The one in
InlineCost is very close, but it requires re-mapping non-constant
indices through the cost analysis value simplification map. I could add
direct support for this to the generic routine, but it seems overly
specific.
llvm-svn: 169853
Sooooo many of these had incorrect or strange main module includes.
I have manually inspected all of these, and fixed the main module
include to be the nearest plausible thing I could find. If you own or
care about any of these source files, I encourage you to take some time
and check that these edits were sensible. I can't have broken anything
(I strictly added headers, and reordered them, never removed), but they
may not be the headers you'd really like to identify as containing the
API being implemented.
Many forward declarations and missing includes were added to a header
files to allow them to parse cleanly when included first. The main
module rule does in fact have its merits. =]
llvm-svn: 169131
Added in first optimization using fast-math flags to serve as an example for following optimizations. SimplifyInstruction will now try to optimize an fmul observing its FastMathFlags to see if it can fold multiply by zero when 'nnan' and 'nsz' flags are set.
llvm-svn: 168648
r165941: Resubmit the changes to llvm core to update the functions to
support different pointer sizes on a per address space basis.
Despite this commit log, this change primarily changed stuff outside of
VMCore, and those changes do not carry any tests for correctness (or
even plausibility), and we have consistently found questionable or flat
out incorrect cases in these changes. Most of them are probably correct,
but we need to devise a system that makes it more clear when we have
handled the address space concerns correctly, and ideally each pass that
gets updated would receive an accompanying test case that exercises that
pass specificaly w.r.t. alternate address spaces.
However, from this commit, I have retained the new C API entry points.
Those were an orthogonal change that probably should have been split
apart, but they seem entirely good.
In several places the changes were very obvious cleanups with no actual
multiple address space code added; these I have not reverted when
I spotted them.
In a few other places there were merge conflicts due to a cleaner
solution being implemented later, often not using address spaces at all.
In those cases, I've preserved the new code which isn't address space
dependent.
This is part of my ongoing effort to clean out the partial address space
code which carries high risk and low test coverage, and not likely to be
finished before the 3.2 release looms closer. Duncan and I would both
like to see the above issues addressed before we return to these
changes.
llvm-svn: 167222
getIntPtrType support for multiple address spaces via a pointer type,
and also introduced a crasher bug in the constant folder reported in
PR14233.
These commits also contained several problems that should really be
addressed before they are re-committed. I have avoided reverting various
cleanups to the DataLayout APIs that are reasonable to have moving
forward in order to reduce the amount of churn, and minimize the number
of commits that were reverted. I've also manually updated merge
conflicts and manually arranged for the getIntPtrType function to stay
in DataLayout and to be defined in a plausible way after this revert.
Thanks to Duncan for working through this exact strategy with me, and
Nick Lewycky for tracking down the really annoying crasher this
triggered. (Test case to follow in its own commit.)
After discussing with Duncan extensively, and based on a note from
Micah, I'm going to continue to back out some more of the more
problematic patches in this series in order to ensure we go into the
LLVM 3.2 branch with a reasonable story here. I'll send a note to
llvmdev explaining what's going on and why.
Summary of reverted revisions:
r166634: Fix a compiler warning with an unused variable.
r166607: Add some cleanup to the DataLayout changes requested by
Chandler.
r166596: Revert "Back out r166591, not sure why this made it through
since I cancelled the command. Bleh, sorry about this!
r166591: Delete a directory that wasn't supposed to be checked in yet.
r166578: Add in support for getIntPtrType to get the pointer type based
on the address space.
llvm-svn: 167221
instsimplify+inline strategy.
The crux of the problem is that instsimplify was reasonably relying on
an invariant that is true within any single function, but is no longer
true mid-inline the way we use it. This invariant is that an argument
pointer != a local (alloca) pointer.
The fix is really light weight though, and allows instsimplify to be
resiliant to these situations: when checking the relation ships to
function arguments, ensure that the argumets come from the same
function. If they come from different functions, then none of these
assumptions hold. All credit to Benjamin Kramer for coming up with this
clever solution to the problem.
llvm-svn: 161410
Original commit message for r153521 (aka r153423):
Use the new range metadata in computeMaskedBits and add a new optimization to
instruction simplify that lets us remove an and when loding a boolean value.
llvm-svn: 153587
undefined behavior, which Rafael was kind enough to fix.
Original commit message for r153423:
Use the new range metadata in computeMaskedBits and add a new optimization to
instruction simplify that lets us remove an and when loding a boolean value.
llvm-svn: 153521
Original commit message:
Use the new range metadata in computeMaskedBits and add a new optimization to
instruction simplify that lets us remove an and when loading a boolean value.
llvm-svn: 153452
constant-offsets of a common base using the generic GEP-walking logic
I added for computing pointer differences in the same situation.
llvm-svn: 153419
inbounds GEPs. This isn't really necessary for simplifying pointer
differences, but I'm planning to re-use the same code to simplify
pointer comparisons where it is necessary. Since real code almost
exclusively uses inbounds GEPs, it doesn't seem worth it to support the
extra complexity of turning it on and off. If anyone would like that
back, feel free to shout. Note that instcombine will still catch any of
these patterns.
llvm-svn: 153418
spotted by inspection, and I've crafted no test case that triggers it on
my machine, but some of the windows builders are hitting what looks like
memory corruption, so *something* is amiss here.
This patch takes a more generalized approach to eliminating
double-visits. Imagine code such as:
%x = ...
%y = add %x, 1
%z = add %x, %y
You can imagine that if we simplify %x, we would add %y and %z to the
list. If the use-chain order happens to cause us to add them in reverse
order, we could pull %y off first, and simplify it, adding %z to the
list. We now have %z on the list twice, and will reference it after it
is deleted.
Currently, all my test cases happen to not trigger this, likely due to
the use-chain ordering, but there seems no guarantee that such
a situation could not occur, so we should handle it correctly.
Again, if anyone knows how to craft a testcase that actually triggers
this, please let me know.
llvm-svn: 153397
worklist. This can happen in theory when an instruction uses itself,
such as a PHI node. This was spotted by inspection, and unfortunately
I've not been able to come up with a test case that would trigger it. If
anyone has ideas, let me know...
llvm-svn: 153396
bit simpler by handling a common case explicitly.
Also, refactor the implementation to use a worklist based walk of the
recursive users, rather than trying to use value handles to detect and
recover from RAUWs during the recursive descent. This fixes a very
subtle bug in the previous implementation where degenerate control flow
structures could cause mutually recursive instructions (PHI nodes) to
collapse in just such a way that From became equal to To after some
amount of recursion. At that point, we hit the inf-loop that the assert
at the top attempted to guard against. This problem is defined away when
not using value handles in this manner. There are lots of comments
claiming that the WeakVH will protect against just this sort of error,
but they're not accurate about the actual implementation of WeakVHs,
which do still track RAUWs.
I don't have any test case for the bug this fixes because it requires
running the recursive simplification on unreachable phi nodes. I've no
way to either run this or easily write an input that triggers it. It was
found when using instruction simplification inside the inliner when
running over the nightly test-suite.
llvm-svn: 153393
not attched to a basic block or function. There are conservatively
correct answers in these cases, and this makes the analysis more useful
in contexts where we have a partially formed bit of IR.
I don't have any way to test this directly... suggestions welcome here,
but I'm not seeing anything sadly. I only found this using a subsequent
patch to the inliner which runs instsimplify on partially inlined
instructions, and even then only on a quite large program. I never got
a reasonable testcase out of it, and anything I do get is likely to be
quite fragile due to requiring an interaction of two different passes,
and the only result being a segfault if it goes wrong.
llvm-svn: 153176
theoretical fix since it only matters for types with >= 2^63 bits (!) and also
only matters if pointers have more than 64 bits, which is not supported anyway.
llvm-svn: 152831
take a TargetLibraryInfo parameter. Internally, rather than passing TD, TLI
and DT parameters around all over the place, introduce a struct for holding
them.
llvm-svn: 152623
offset accumulation to use a boring APInt instead of ConstantExprs.
I didn't go all the way to an 'int64_t' because I wanted APInt to handle
any magic required to properly wrap the arithmetic when the pointer
width is <64 bits. If there is a significant penalty from using APInt
here, first off WTF, and secondly let me know and I'll do the math by
hand.
I've left one layer still operating w/ ConstantExpr because it makes the
interface quite a bit simpler, and that one isn't iterative so has much
lower cost.
I suppose this may potentially speed up some strang compilation
situations, but I don't really expect much. It should have no functional
impact either way.
llvm-svn: 152590
Typically instcombine has handled this, but pointer differences show up
in several contexts where we would like to get constant folding, and
cannot afford to run instcombine. Specifically, I'm working on improving
the constant folding of arguments used in inline cost analysis with
instsimplify.
Doing this in instsimplify implies some algorithm changes. We have to
handle multiple layers of all-constant GEPs because instsimplify cannot
fold them into a single GEP the way instcombine can. Also, we're only
interested in all-constant GEPs. The result is that this doesn't really
replace the instcombine logic, it's just complimentary and focused on
constant folding.
Reviewed on IRC by Benjamin Kramer.
llvm-svn: 152555
The 'CmpInst::isFalseWhenEqual' function returns 'false' for values other than
simply equality. For instance, it returns 'false' for <= or >=. This isn't the
correct behavior for this transformation, which is checking for strict equality
and non-equality. It was causing the gcc.c-torture/execute/frame-address.c test
to fail because it would completely (and incorrectly) optimize a whole function
into a 'ret i32 0'.
llvm-svn: 152497
a common collection of methods on Value, and share their implementation.
We had two variations in two different places already, and I need the
third variation for inline cost estimation.
Reviewed by Duncan Sands on IRC, but further comments here welcome.
llvm-svn: 152490
David Majnemer