Pulled out of the original D90479 patch - also includes the "impossible shift amount" filtering from computeKnownBitsFromShiftOperator.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D90479
Followup to D72573 - as detailed in https://blog.regehr.org/archives/1709 we don't make use of the known leading/trailing zeros for shifted values in cases where we don't know the shift amount value.
Stop ValueTracking returning zero for poison shift patterns and use the KnownBits shift helpers directly.
Extend KnownBits::shl to combine all possible shifted combinations if both min/max shift amount values are in range.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D90479
The result must be less than or equal to the LHS side, so any
leading zeros in the left hand side must also exist in the result.
This is stronger than the previous behavior where we only considered
the sign bit being 0.
The affected test case used the sign bit being known 0 to change
a sign extend to a zero extend pre type legalization. After type
legalization the types were promoted to i64, but we no longer
knew bit 31 was zero. This shifts are are the equivalent of an
AND with 0xffffffff or zext_inreg X, i32. This patch allows us to
see that bit 31 is zero and remove the shifts.
Reviewed By: RKSimon
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D97124
Check if all possible values for a pair of knownbits give the same icmp result - these are based off the checks performed in InstCombineCompares.cpp and D86578.
Add exhaustive unit test coverage - a followup will update InstCombineCompares.cpp to use this.
ValueTracking was using a more powerful abs() implementation. Roll
it into KnownBits::abs(). Also add an exhaustive test for abs(),
in both the poisoning and non-poisoning variants.
By starting with the source shift value minimum leading/trailing bits, we can then add the minimum known shift amount to more accurately predict the minimum leading/trailing bits of the result.
This is currently only covered by the exhaustive unit tests in KnownBitsTests.cpp, but will help with some of the regressions encountered in D90479 (PR44526).
We have a frequent pattern where we're merging two KnownBits to get the common/shared bits, and I just fell for the gotcha where I tried to use the & operator to merge them........
As discussed on D90527, we should be trying to move shift handling functionality into KnownBits to avoid code duplication in SelectionDAG/GlobalISel/ValueTracking.
As discussed on D90527, we should be be trying to move shift handling functionality into KnownBits to avoid code duplication in SelectionDAG/GlobalISel/ValueTracking.
The refactor to use the KnownBits fixed/min/max constant helpers allows us to hit a couple of cases that we were missing before.
We still need the getValidMinimumShiftAmountConstant case as KnownBits doesn't handle per-element vector cases.
As discussed on D90527, we should be be trying to move shift handling functionality into KnownBits to avoid code duplication in SelectionDAG/GlobalISel/ValueTracking.
The refactor to use the KnownBits fixed/min/max constant helpers allows us to hit a couple of cases that we were missing before.
We still need the getValidMinimumShiftAmountConstant case as KnownBits doesn't handle per-element vector cases.
This patch refactors the logic in ValueTracking.cpp so that
computeKnownBitsForMul now uses a helper function from KnownBits.
NFC
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D88935
Summary:
There are at least three clients for KnownBits calculations:
ValueTracking, SelectionDAG and GlobalISel. To reduce duplication the
common logic should be moved out of these clients and into KnownBits
itself.
This patch does this for AND, OR and XOR calculations by implementing
and using appropriate operator overloads KnownBits::operator& etc.
Subscribers: hiraditya, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D74060
As it can be seen from accompanying cleanup, it is not unheard of
to write `~Known.Zero` meaning "what maximal value can this KnownBits
produce". But i think `~Known.Zero` isn't *that* self-explanatory,
as compared to a method with a name.
Note that not all `~Known.Zero` places were cleaned up,
only those where this arguably improves things.
This is for D60460. computeForAddSub() essentially already supports
carries because it has to deal with subtractions. This revision
extracts a lower-level computeForAddCarry() function, which allows
computing the known bits for add (carry known zero), sub (carry known
one) and addcarry (carry unknown).
As we don't seem to have any yet, I've added a unit test file for
KnownBits and exhaustive tests for the new computeForAddCarry()
functionality, as well the existing computeForAddSub() function.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D60522
llvm-svn: 358297
to reflect the new license.
We understand that people may be surprised that we're moving the header
entirely to discuss the new license. We checked this carefully with the
Foundation's lawyer and we believe this is the correct approach.
Essentially, all code in the project is now made available by the LLVM
project under our new license, so you will see that the license headers
include that license only. Some of our contributors have contributed
code under our old license, and accordingly, we have retained a copy of
our old license notice in the top-level files in each project and
repository.
llvm-svn: 351636
I want to reuse this code in SimplifyDemandedBits handling of Add/Sub. This will make that easier.
Wonder if we should use it in SelectionDAG's computeKnownBits too.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D36433
llvm-svn: 310378
Simon Pilgrim