Fix https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=44419 by preserving the
nuw on sub of geps. We only do this if the offset has a multiplication
as the final operation, as we can't be sure the operations is nuw
in the other cases without more thorough analysis.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D72048
This is a special case of Z / (X / Y) => (Y * Z) / X, with X = 1.0.
The m_OneUse check is avoided because even in the case of the
multiple uses for 1.0/Y, the number of instructions remain the same
and a division is replaced by a multiplication.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D72319
The added testcase shows the current transformation for the operation
Z / (1.0 / Y), which remains unchanged. This will be updated to align
with the transformed code (Y * Z) with D72319.
The existing transformation Z / (X / Y) => (Y * Z) / X is not handling
this case as there are multiple uses for (1.0 / Y) in this testcase.
Patch by: @raghesh (Raghesh Aloor)
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D72388
This reverts commit a041c4ec6f.
This looks like a non-trivial change and there has been no code
reviews (at least there were no phabricator revisions attached to the
commit description). It is also causing a regression in one of our
downstream integration tests, we haven't been able to come up with a
minimal reproducer yet.
not (select ?, (cmp TPred, ?, ?), (cmp FPred, ?, ?) -->
select ?, (cmp TPred', ?, ?), (cmp FPred', ?, ?)
If both sides of the select are cmps, we can remove an instruction.
The case where only side is a cmp is deferred to a possible
follow-on patch.
We have a more general 'isFreeToInvert' analysis, but I'm not seeing
a way to use that more widely without inducing infinite looping
(opposing transforms).
Here, we flip the compare predicates directly, so we should not have
any danger by creating extra intermediate 'not' ops.
Alive proofs:
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/jKa
Name: both select values are compares - invert predicates
%tcmp = icmp sle i32 %x, %y
%fcmp = icmp ugt i32 %z, %w
%sel = select i1 %cond, i1 %tcmp, i1 %fcmp
%not = xor i1 %sel, true
=>
%tcmp_not = icmp sgt i32 %x, %y
%fcmp_not = icmp ule i32 %z, %w
%not = select i1 %cond, i1 %tcmp_not, i1 %fcmp_not
Name: false val is compare - invert/not
%fcmp = icmp ugt i32 %z, %w
%sel = select i1 %cond, i1 %tcmp, i1 %fcmp
%not = xor i1 %sel, true
=>
%tcmp_not = xor i1 %tcmp, -1
%fcmp_not = icmp ule i32 %z, %w
%not = select i1 %cond, i1 %tcmp_not, i1 %fcmp_not
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D72007
Name: (X & (- Y)) - X -> - (X & (Y - 1)) (PR44448)
%negy = sub i8 0, %y
%unbiasedx = and i8 %negy, %x
%r = sub i8 %unbiasedx, %x
=>
%ymask = add i8 %y, -1
%xmasked = and i8 %ymask, %x
%r = sub i8 0, %xmasked
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/OIpla
This decreases use count of %x, may allow us to
later hoist said negation even further,
and results in marginally nicer X86 codegen.
See
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=44448https://reviews.llvm.org/D71499
As shown in P44383:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=44383
...we can't safely propagate a vector constant through this icmp fold
if that vector constant contains undefined elements.
We know that each defined element of the constant is safe though, so
find the first of those and replicate it into the formerly undef lanes.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D72101
This is a less ambitious alternative to previous attempts to fix
this bug with:
rG56b2aee1875a
rGef02831f0a4e
rG56b2aee1875a
...because those all failed bot testing with use-after-free or
other problems.
The original crashing/assert problem is still showing up on
various fuzzers, so I've added a new minimal test based on
another one of those failures.
Instead of trying to manage and coordinate the logic in
isAllocSiteRemovable() with the deletion loops, just loosen
the existing code that handles casts and GEP by replacing
with undef to allow other opcodes. That means that no
instructions with uses should assert on deletion, and there
are hopefully no non-obvious sanitizer bugs induced.
The instructions use a mask to either pack disjoint bits together(pext) or spread bits to disjoint locations(pdep). If the mask is all 0s then no bits are extracted or deposited. If the mask is all ones, then the source value is written to the result since no compression or expansion happens. Otherwise if both the source and mask are constant we can walk the bits in the source/mask and calculate the result.
There other crazier things we could do like computeKnownBits or turning pext into shift/and if only a single contiguous range of bits is extracted.
Fixes PR44389
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D71952
This does not solve PR17101, but it is one of the
underlying diffs noted here:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=17101#c8
We could ease the one-use checks for the 'clear'
(no 'not' op) half of the transform, but I do not
know if that asymmetry would make things better
or worse.
Proofs:
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/uVB
Name: masked bit set
%sh1 = shl i32 1, %y
%and = and i32 %sh1, %x
%cmp = icmp ne i32 %and, 0
%r = zext i1 %cmp to i32
=>
%s = lshr i32 %x, %y
%r = and i32 %s, 1
Name: masked bit clear
%sh1 = shl i32 1, %y
%and = and i32 %sh1, %x
%cmp = icmp eq i32 %and, 0
%r = zext i1 %cmp to i32
=>
%xn = xor i32 %x, -1
%s = lshr i32 %xn, %y
%r = and i32 %s, 1
Judging by the existing comments, this was the intention, but the
transform never actually checked if the existing phi's would be removed.
See https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=44242 for an example where
this causes much worse code generation on AMDGPU.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D71209
This patch adds necessary test cases for load-update-store pattern
which only updates single element of vector.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D71886
As discussed in PR44330:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=44330
...the transform from pow(X, -0.5) libcall/intrinsic to
reciprocal square root can result in small deviations from
the expected result due to differences in the pow()
implementation and/or the extra rounding step from the division.
This patch proposes to allow that difference with either the
'approximate functions' or 'reassociate' FMF:
http://llvm.org/docs/LangRef.html#fast-math-flags
In practice, this likely means that the code is compiled with
all of 'fast' (-ffast-math), but I have preserved the existing
specializations for -0.0/-INF that enable generating safe code
if those special values are allowed simultaneously with
allowing approximation/reassociation.
The question about whether a similar restriction is needed for
the non-reciprocal case -- pow(X, 0.5) -- is deferred. That
transform is allowed without FMF currently, and this patch does
not change that behavior.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D71706
Summary:
This patch limits the default number of iterations performed by InstCombine. It also exposes a new option that allows to specify how many iterations is considered getting stuck in an infinite loop.
Based on experiments performed on real-world C++ programs, InstCombine seems to perform at most ~8-20 iterations, so treating 1000 iterations as an infinite loop seems like a safe choice. See D71145 for details.
The two limits can be specified via command line options.
Reviewers: spatel, lebedev.ri, nikic, xbolva00, grosser
Reviewed By: spatel
Subscribers: hiraditya, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D71673
Summary:
It is pretty common to assume that something is not zero.
Even optimizer itself sometimes emits such assumptions
(e.g. `addAssumeNonNull()` in `PromoteMemoryToRegister.cpp`).
But we currently don't deal with such assumptions :)
The only way `isKnownNonZero()` handles assumptions is
by calling `computeKnownBits()` which calls `computeKnownBitsFromAssume()`.
But `x != 0` does not tell us anything about set bits,
it only says that there are *some* set bits.
So naturally, `KnownBits` does not get populated,
and we fail to make use of this assumption.
I propose to deal with this special case by special-casing it
via adding a `isKnownNonZeroFromAssume()` that returns boolean
when there is an applicable assumption.
While there, we also deal with other predicates,
mainly if the comparison is with constant.
Fixes [[ https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=43267 | PR43267 ]].
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D71660
This is a pretty rare case, when CxtI and assume are
in the same basic block, with assume being located later.
We were already checking that assumption was guaranteed to be
executed, but we omitted CxtI itself from consideration,
and as the test (miscompile) shows, that is incorrect.
As noted in D71660 review by @nikic.
@escape() may throw here, we don't know that assumption, which is located
afterwards in the same block, is executed, therefore %load arg of
call to @escape() can not be marked as non-null.
As noted in D71660 review by @nikic.
Sanjay Patel