Handle (x << s) != (y << s) where x != y and the shifts are
non-wrapping. Once again, this establishes parity with the
corresponing mul fold that already exists. The shift case is
more powerful because we don't need to guard against multiplies
by zero.
This handles the pattern X != X << C for non-zero X and C and a
non-overflowing shift. This establishes parity with the corresponing
fold for multiplies.
This is mainly for clarity: It doesn't make sense to do any
negative/positive checks when dealing with a nuw add/mul. These
only make sense to nsw add/mul.
loop:
%cmp.0 = phi i32 [ 3, %entry ], [ %inc, %loop ]
%pos.0 = phi i32 [ 1, %entry ], [ %cmp.0, %loop ]
...
%inc = add i32 %cmp.0, 1
br label %loop
On above example, %pos.0 uses previous iteration's %cmp.0 with backedge
according to PHI's instruction's defintion. If the %inc is not same among
iterations, we can say the two PHIs are not same.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D98422
All of these are scoped allocations which remain dereferenceable during the lifetime of the callee.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D99310
This implements a subset of the initial set of inference rules proposed in the llvm-dev thread "RFC: Decomposing deref(N) into deref(N) + nofree". The nolias one got moved to a separate review as there was some concerns raised which require further discussion.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D99135
X != X * C is true if:
* C is not 0 or 1
* X is not 0
* mul is nsw or nuw
Proof: https://alive2.llvm.org/ce/z/uwF29z
This is motivated by one of the cases in D98422.
Instcombine will convert the nonnull and alignment assumption that use the boolean condtion
to an assumption that uses the operand bundles when knowledge retention is enabled.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D82703
The motivation for this is that I'm looking at an example that uses shifts as induction variables. There's lots of other omissions, but one of the first I noticed is that we can't compute tight known bits. (This indirectly causes SCEV's range analysis to produce very poor results as well.)
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D96440
Instcombine will convert the nonnull and alignment assumption that use the boolean condtion
to an assumption that uses the operand bundles when knowledge retention is enabled.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D82703
Currently LLVM is relying on ValueTracking's `isKnownNonZero` to attach `nonnull`, which can return true when the value is poison.
To make the semantics of `nonnull` consistent with the behavior of `isKnownNonZero`, this makes the semantics of `nonnull` to accept poison, and return poison if the input pointer isn't null.
This makes many transformations like below legal:
```
%p = gep inbounds %x, 1 ; % p is non-null pointer or poison
call void @f(%p) ; instcombine converts this to call void @f(nonnull %p)
```
Instead, this semantics makes propagation of `nonnull` to caller illegal.
The reason is that, passing poison to `nonnull` does not immediately raise UB anymore, so such program is still well defined, if the callee does not use the argument.
Having `noundef` attribute there re-allows this.
```
define void @f(i8* %p) { ; functionattr cannot mark %p nonnull here anymore
call void @g(i8* nonnull %p) ; .. because @g never raises UB if it never uses %p.
ret void
}
```
Another attribute that needs to be updated is `align`. This patch updates the semantics of align to accept poison as well.
Reviewed By: jdoerfert
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D90529
Confusingly, BinaryOperator is not an Operator,
OverflowingBinaryOperator is... We were implicitly assuming that
the multiply is an Instruction here.
This fixes the assertion failure reported in
https://reviews.llvm.org/D92726#2472827.
Build on the work started in 8f07629, and add the multiply case. In the process, more clearly describe the requirement for the operation we're looking through.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D92726
The basic idea is that by looking through operand instructions which don't change the equality result that we can push the existing known bits comparison down past instructions which would obscure them.
We have analogous handling in InstSimplify for most - though weirdly not all - of these cases starting from an icmp root. It's a bit unfortunate to duplicate logic, but since my actual goal is to extend BasicAA, the icmp logic doesn't help. (And just makes it hard to test here.) The BasicAA change will be posted separately for review.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D92698
This patch is to add the support of the value tracking of the alignment assume bundle.
Reviewed By: jdoerfert
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D88669
Summary:
Add debug counter and stats counter to assume queries and assume builder
here is the collected stats on a build of check-llvm + check-clang.
"assume-builder.NumAssumeBuilt": 2720879,
"assume-builder.NumAssumesMerged": 761396,
"assume-builder.NumAssumesRemoved": 1576212,
"assume-builder.NumBundlesInAssumes": 6518809,
"assume-queries.NumAssumeQueries": 85566380,
"assume-queries.NumUsefullAssumeQueries": 2727360,
the NumUsefullAssumeQueries stat is actually pessimistic because in a few places queries
ask to keep providing information to try to get better information. and this isn't counted
as a usefull query evem tho it can be usefull
Reviewers: jdoerfert
Reviewed By: jdoerfert
Subscribers: hiraditya, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D83506
If we don't know anything about the alignment of a pointer, Align(1) is
still correct: all pointers are at least 1-byte aligned.
Included in this patch is a bugfix for an issue discovered during this
cleanup: pointers with "dereferenceable" attributes/metadata were
assumed to be aligned according to the type of the pointer. This
wasn't intentional, as far as I can tell, so Loads.cpp was fixed to
stop making this assumption. Frontends may need to be updated. I
updated clang's handling of C++ references, and added a release note for
this.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D80072
The "null-pointer-is-valid" attribute needs to be checked by many
pointer-related combines. To make the check more efficient, convert
it from a string into an enum attribute.
In the future, this attribute may be replaced with data layout
properties.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D78862
For IR generated by a compiler, this is really simple: you just take the
datalayout from the beginning of the file, and apply it to all the IR
later in the file. For optimization testcases that don't care about the
datalayout, this is also really simple: we just use the default
datalayout.
The complexity here comes from the fact that some LLVM tools allow
overriding the datalayout: some tools have an explicit flag for this,
some tools will infer a datalayout based on the code generation target.
Supporting this properly required plumbing through a bunch of new
machinery: we want to allow overriding the datalayout after the
datalayout is parsed from the file, but before we use any information
from it. Therefore, IR/bitcode parsing now has a callback to allow tools
to compute the datalayout at the appropriate time.
Not sure if I covered all the LLVM tools that want to use the callback.
(clang? lli? Misc IR manipulation tools like llvm-link?). But this is at
least enough for all the LLVM regression tests, and IR without a
datalayout is not something frontends should generate.
This change had some sort of weird effects for certain CodeGen
regression tests: if the datalayout is overridden with a datalayout with
a different program or stack address space, we now parse IR based on the
overridden datalayout, instead of the one written in the file (or the
default one, if none is specified). This broke a few AVR tests, and one
AMDGPU test.
Outside the CodeGen tests I mentioned, the test changes are all just
fixing CHECK lines and moving around datalayout lines in weird places.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D78403
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
Philip Reames