Summary:
The actual transform i was going after was:
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/Tp9H
```
Name: zz
Pre: isPowerOf2(C0) && isPowerOf2(C1) && C1 == C0
%t0 = and i8 %x, C0
%r = icmp eq i8 %t0, C1
=>
%t = icmp eq i8 %t0, 0
%r = xor i1 %t, -1
Name: zz
Pre: isPowerOf2(C0)
%t0 = and i8 %x, C0
%r = icmp ne i8 %t0, 0
=>
%t = icmp eq i8 %t0, 0
%r = xor i1 %t, -1
```
but as it can be seen from the current tests, we already canonicalize most of it,
and we are only missing handling multi-use non-canonical icmp predicates.
If we have both `!=0` and `==0`, even though we can CSE them,
we end up being stuck with them. We should canonicalize to the `==0`.
I believe this is one of the cleanup steps i'll need after `-scalarizer`
if i end up proceeding with my WIP alloca promotion helper pass.
Reviewers: spatel, jdoerfert, nikic
Reviewed By: nikic
Subscribers: zzheng, hiraditya, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D83139
Summary:
D68408 proposes to greatly improve our negation sinking abilities.
But in current canonicalization, we produce `sub A, zext(B)`,
which we will consider non-canonical and try to sink that negation,
undoing the existing canonicalization.
So unless we explicitly stop producing previous canonicalization,
we will have two conflicting folds, and will end up endlessly looping.
This inverts canonicalization, and adds back the obvious fold
that we'd miss:
* `sub [nsw] Op0, sext/zext (bool Y) -> add [nsw] Op0, zext/sext (bool Y)`
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/xx4
* `sext(bool) + C -> bool ? C - 1 : C`
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/fBl
It is obvious that `@ossfuzz_9880()` / `@lshr_out_of_range()`/`@ashr_out_of_range()`
(oss-fuzz 4871) are no longer folded as much, though those aren't really worrying.
Reviewers: spatel, efriedma, t.p.northover, hfinkel
Reviewed By: spatel
Subscribers: hiraditya, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D71064
The 1st attempt at rL374828 inserted the code
at the wrong position (outside of the constant-shift-amount
block). Trying again with an additional test to verify
const-ness.
For a constant shift amount, add the following fold.
shl (zext (i1 X)), ShAmt --> select (X, 1 << ShAmt, 0)
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/IZ9
Fixes PR42257.
Based on original patch by @zvi (Zvi Rackover)
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D63382
llvm-svn: 374886
For a constant shift amount, add the following fold.
shl (zext (i1 X)), ShAmt --> select (X, 1 << ShAmt, 0)
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/IZ9
Fixes PR42257.
Based on original patch by @zvi (Zvi Rackover)
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D63382
llvm-svn: 374828
We do indeed already get it right in some cases, but only transitively,
with one-use restrictions. Since we only need to produce a single
comparison, it makes sense to match the pattern directly:
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/kPg
llvm-svn: 373802
This reverts commit 5dbb90bfe1.
As noted in the post-commit thread for r367891, this can create
a multiply that is lowered to a libcall that may not exist.
We need to improve the backend decomposition for integer multiply
before trying to re-land this (if it's still worthwhile after
doing the backend work).
llvm-svn: 369174
This appears to slightly help patterns similar to what's
shown in PR42874:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=42874
...but not in the way requested.
That fix will require some later IR and/or backend pass to
decompose multiply/shifts into something more optimal per
target. Those transforms already exist in some basic forms,
but probably need enhancing to catch more cases.
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/Qzv2
llvm-svn: 367891
As it's causing some bot failures (and per request from kbarton).
This reverts commit r358543/ab70da07286e618016e78247e4a24fcb84077fda.
llvm-svn: 358546
The hexagon test should be fixed now.
Original commit message:
This pulls shifts through a select+binop with a constant where the select conditionally executes the binop. We already do this for just the binop, but not with the select.
This can allow us to get the select closer to other selects to enable removing one.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D39222
llvm-svn: 317600
This broke the CodeGen/Hexagon/loop-idiom/pmpy-mod.ll test on a bunch of buildbots.
> This pulls shifts through a select+binop with a constant where the select conditionally executes the binop. We already do this for just the binop, but not with the select.
>
> This can allow us to get the select closer to other selects to enable removing one.
>
> Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D39222
>
> git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@317510 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
llvm-svn: 317518
This pulls shifts through a select+binop with a constant where the select conditionally executes the binop. We already do this for just the binop, but not with the select.
This can allow us to get the select closer to other selects to enable removing one.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D39222
llvm-svn: 317510
There's an early out that's trying to detect when we don't know any bits that make up the legal range of a shift. The code subtracts one from BitWidth which creates a mask in the lower bits for power of 2 bit widths. This is then ANDed with the known bits to see if any of those bits are known. If the bit width isn't a power of 2 this creates a non-sensical mask.
This patch corrects this by rounding up to a power of 2 before doing the subtract and mask.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D34165
llvm-svn: 305400
The original shift is bigger, so this may qualify as 'obvious',
but here's an attempt at an Alive-based proof:
Name: exact
Pre: (C1 u< C2)
%a = shl i8 %x, C1
%b = lshr exact i8 %a, C2
=>
%c = lshr exact i8 %x, C2 - C1
%b = and i8 %c, ((1 << width(C1)) - 1) u>> C2
Optimization is correct!
llvm-svn: 293498
Roman Lebedev