This restores what was lost with rL73243 but without
re-introducing the bug that was present in the old code.
Note that we already have these transforms if the ops are
marked 'fast' (and I assume that's happening somewhere in
the code added with rL170471), but we clearly don't need
all of 'fast' for these transforms.
llvm-svn: 329362
A fold for this pattern was removed at rL73243 to fix PR4374:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4374
...and apparently there were no tests that went with that fold.
llvm-svn: 329360
There used to be a fold that would handle this case more generally,
but it was removed at rL73243 to fix PR4374:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4374
llvm-svn: 329322
With the updated LangRef ( D44216 / rL327138 ) in place, we can proceed with more constant folding.
I'm intentionally taking the conservative path here: no matter what the constant or the FMF, we can
always fold to NaN. This is because the undef operand can be chosen as NaN, and in our simplified
default FP env, nothing else happens - NaN just propagates to the result. If we find some way/need
to propagate undef instead, that can be added subsequently.
The tests show that we always choose the same quiet NaN constant (0x7FF8000000000000 in IR text).
There were suggestions to improve that with a 'NaN' string token or not always print a 64-bit hex
value, but those are independent changes. We might also consider setting/propagating the payload of
NaN constants as an enhancement.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D44308
llvm-svn: 327208
There is logic to track the expected number of instructions
produced. It thought in this case an instruction would
be necessary to negate the result, but here it folded
into a ConstantExpr fneg when the non-undef value operand
was cancelled out by the second fsub.
I'm not sure why we don't fold constant FP ops with undef currently,
but I think that would also avoid this problem.
llvm-svn: 301199
Sanjay Patel