It handles the errors which were seen in PR19958 where wrong code was being emitted due to earlier patch.
Added code for lshr as well as non-exact right shifts.
It implements :
(icmp eq/ne (ashr/lshr const2, A), const1)" ->
(icmp eq/ne A, Log2(const2/const1)) ->
(icmp eq/ne A, Log2(const2) - Log2(const1))
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D4068
llvm-svn: 213678
The messages were
"PR19753: Optimize comparisons with "ashr exact" of a constanst."
"Added support to optimize comparisons with "lshr exact" of a constant."
They were not correctly handling signed/unsigned operation differences,
causing pr19958.
llvm-svn: 210393
Summary:
This gets rid of a sub instruction by moving the negation to the
constant when valid.
Reviewers: nicholas
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D3773
llvm-svn: 208827
definition below all of the header #include lines, lib/Transforms/...
edition.
This one is tricky for two reasons. We again have a couple of passes
that define something else before the includes as well. I've sunk their
name macros with the DEBUG_TYPE.
Also, InstCombine contains headers that need DEBUG_TYPE, so now those
headers #define and #undef DEBUG_TYPE around their code, leaving them
well formed modular headers. Fixing these headers was a large motivation
for all of these changes, as "leaky" macros of this form are hard on the
modules implementation.
llvm-svn: 206844
header files and into the cpp files.
These files will require more touches as the header files actually use
DEBUG(). Eventually, I'll have to introduce a matched #define and #undef
of DEBUG_TYPE for the header files, but that comes as step N of many to
clean all of this up.
llvm-svn: 206777
If multiplication involves zero-extended arguments and the result is
compared as in the patterns:
%mul32 = trunc i64 %mul64 to i32
%zext = zext i32 %mul32 to i64
%overflow = icmp ne i64 %mul64, %zext
or
%overflow = icmp ugt i64 %mul64 , 0xffffffff
then the multiplication may be replaced by call to umul.with.overflow.
This change fixes PR4917 and PR4918.
Differential Revision: http://llvm-reviews.chandlerc.com/D2814
llvm-svn: 206137
This reverts commit r204912, and follow-up commit r204948.
This introduced a performance regression, and the fix is not completely
clear yet.
llvm-svn: 205010
Fixes a miscompile introduced in r204912. It would miscompile code like
(unsigned)(a + -49) <= 5U. The transform would turn this into
(unsigned)a < 55U, which would return true for values in [0, 49], when
it should not.
llvm-svn: 204948
This requires a number of steps.
1) Move value_use_iterator into the Value class as an implementation
detail
2) Change it to actually be a *Use* iterator rather than a *User*
iterator.
3) Add an adaptor which is a User iterator that always looks through the
Use to the User.
4) Wrap these in Value::use_iterator and Value::user_iterator typedefs.
5) Add the range adaptors as Value::uses() and Value::users().
6) Update *all* of the callers to correctly distinguish between whether
they wanted a use_iterator (and to explicitly dig out the User when
needed), or a user_iterator which makes the Use itself totally
opaque.
Because #6 requires churning essentially everything that walked the
Use-Def chains, I went ahead and added all of the range adaptors and
switched them to range-based loops where appropriate. Also because the
renaming requires at least churning every line of code, it didn't make
any sense to split these up into multiple commits -- all of which would
touch all of the same lies of code.
The result is still not quite optimal. The Value::use_iterator is a nice
regular iterator, but Value::user_iterator is an iterator over User*s
rather than over the User objects themselves. As a consequence, it fits
a bit awkwardly into the range-based world and it has the weird
extra-dereferencing 'operator->' that so many of our iterators have.
I think this could be fixed by providing something which transforms
a range of T&s into a range of T*s, but that *can* be separated into
another patch, and it isn't yet 100% clear whether this is the right
move.
However, this change gets us most of the benefit and cleans up
a substantial amount of code around Use and User. =]
llvm-svn: 203364
a bit surprising, as the class is almost entirely abstracted away from
any particular IR, however it encodes the comparsion predicates which
mutate ranges as ICmp predicate codes. This is reasonable as they're
used for both instructions and constants. Thus, it belongs in the IR
library with instructions and constants.
llvm-svn: 202838
name might indicate, it is an iterator over the types in an instruction
in the IR.... You see where this is going.
Another step of modularizing the support library.
llvm-svn: 202815
I am really sorry for the noise, but the current state where some parts of the
code use TD (from the old name: TargetData) and other parts use DL makes it
hard to write a patch that changes where those variables come from and how
they are passed along.
llvm-svn: 201827
logical operations on the i1's driving them. This is a bad idea for every
target I can think of (confirmed with micro tests on all of: x86-64, ARM,
AArch64, Mips, and PowerPC) because it forces the i1 to be materialized into
a general purpose register, whereas consuming it directly into a select generally
allows it to exist only transiently in a predicate or flags register.
Chandler ran a set of performance tests with this change, and reported no
measurable change on x86-64.
llvm-svn: 201275
This change fixes the case of arithmetic shift right - do not attempt to fold that case.
This change also relaxes the conditions when attempting to fold the logical shift right and shift left cases.
No additional IR-level test cases included at this time. See http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=17827 for proofs that these are correct transformations.
llvm-svn: 197705
Several architectures use the same instruction to perform both a comparison and
a subtract. The instruction selection framework does not allow to consider
different basic blocks to expose such fusion opportunities.
Therefore, these instructions are “merged” by CSE at MI IR level.
To increase the likelihood of CSE to apply in such situation, we reorder the
operands of the comparison, when they have the same complexity, so that they
matches the order of the most frequent subtract.
E.g.,
icmp A, B
...
sub B, A
<rdar://problem/14514580>
llvm-svn: 190352
The following transforms are valid if -C is a power of 2:
(icmp ugt (xor X, C), ~C) -> (icmp ult X, C)
(icmp ult (xor X, C), -C) -> (icmp uge X, C)
These are nice, they get rid of the xor.
llvm-svn: 185915
Back in r179493 we determined that two transforms collided with each
other. The fix back then was to reorder the transforms so that the
preferred transform would give it a try and then we would try the
secondary transform. However, it was noted that the best approach would
canonicalize one transform into the other, removing the collision and
allowing us to optimize IR given to us in that form.
llvm-svn: 185808
Changing the sign when comparing the base pointer would introduce all
sorts of unexpected things like:
%gep.i = getelementptr inbounds [1 x i8]* %a, i32 0, i32 0
%gep2.i = getelementptr inbounds [1 x i8]* %b, i32 0, i32 0
%cmp.i = icmp ult i8* %gep.i, %gep2.i
%cmp.i1 = icmp ult [1 x i8]* %a, %b
%cmp = icmp ne i1 %cmp.i, %cmp.i1
ret i1 %cmp
into:
%cmp.i = icmp slt [1 x i8]* %a, %b
%cmp.i1 = icmp ult [1 x i8]* %a, %b
%cmp = xor i1 %cmp.i, %cmp.i1
ret i1 %cmp
By preserving the original sign, we now get:
ret i1 false
This fixes PR16483.
llvm-svn: 185259
Suyog Sarda