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
GEP index size can be specified in the DataLayout, introduced in D42123. However, there were still places
in which getIndexSizeInBits was used interchangeably with getPointerSizeInBits. This notably caused issues
with Instcombine's visitPtrToInt; but the unit tests was incorrect, so this remained undiscovered.
This fixes the buildbot failures.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D68328
Patch by Joseph Faulls!
GEP index size can be specified in the DataLayout, introduced in D42123. However, there were still places
in which getIndexSizeInBits was used interchangeably with getPointerSizeInBits. This notably caused issues
with Instcombine's visitPtrToInt; but the unit tests was incorrect, so this remained undiscovered.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D68328
Patch by Joseph Faulls!
Fix for https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=40846.
This adds a combine for cases where a (a + b) < a style overflow
check is performed, but with a + b being the result of
uadd.with.overflow, so the overflow result is also already available
and we can just use it. Subsequently GVN/CSE will deduplicate the extracts.
We can run into this situation if you have both a uadd.with.overflow
and a manual add + overflow check in the same function (on the same
operands), in which case GVN will rewrite the add to the with.overflow
result and leave you with this pattern.
The implementation is a bit ugly because I'm handling the various
canonicalization edge cases.
This does not yet handle the negated version of this pattern.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D58644
rL341831 moved one-use check higher up, restricting a few folds
that produced a single instruction from two instructions to the case
where the inner instruction would go away.
Original commit message:
> InstCombine: move hasOneUse check to the top of foldICmpAddConstant
>
> There were two combines not covered by the check before now,
> neither of which actually differed from normal in the benefit analysis.
>
> The most recent seems to be because it was just added at the top of the
> function (naturally). The older is from way back in 2008 (r46687)
> when we just didn't put those checks in so routinely, and has been
> diligently maintained since.
From the commit message alone, there doesn't seem to be a
deeper motivation, deeper problem that was trying to solve,
other than 'fixing the wrong one-use check'.
As i have briefly discusses in IRC with Tim, the original motivation
can no longer be recovered, too much time has passed.
However i believe that the original fold was doing the right thing,
we should be performing such a transformation even if the inner `add`
will not go away - that will still unchain the comparison from `add`,
it will no longer need to wait for `add` to compute.
Doing so doesn't seem to break any particular idioms,
as least as far as i can see.
References https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=44100
This is a fix for:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=43730
...and as shown there, we have existing test cases that show potential miscompiles.
We could just bail out for vector constants that contain any undef elements, or we can do as shown here:
allow the transform, but replace the undefs with a safe value.
For most of the tests shown, this results in a full splat constant (no undefs) which is probably a win
for further IR analysis because we conservatively don't match undefs in most cases. Codegen can probably
recover these kinds of undef lanes via demanded elements analysis if that's profitable.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D69519
This adds folds for comparing uadd.sat/usub.sat with zero:
* uadd.sat(a, b) == 0 => a == 0 && b == 0 => (a | b) == 0
* usub.sat(a, b) == 0 => a <= b
And inverted forms for !=.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D69224
llvm-svn: 375374
Summary:
This problem consists of several parts:
* Basic sign bit extraction - `trunc? (?shr %x, (bitwidth(x)-1))`.
This is trivial, and easy to do, we have a fold for it.
* Shift amount reassociation - if we have two identical shifts,
and we can simplify-add their shift amounts together,
then we likely can just perform them as a single shift.
But this is finicky, has one-use restrictions,
and shift opcodes must be identical.
But there is a super-pattern where both of these work together.
to produce sign bit test from two shifts + comparison.
We do indeed already handle this in most cases.
But since we get that fold transitively, it has one-use restrictions.
And what's worse, in this case the right-shifts aren't required to be
identical, and we can't handle that transitively:
If the total shift amount is bitwidth-1, only a sign bit will remain
in the output value. But if we look at this from the perspective of
two shifts, we can't fold - we can't possibly know what bit pattern
we'd produce via two shifts, it will be *some* kind of a mask
produced from original sign bit, but we just can't tell it's shape:
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/cM0https://rise4fun.com/Alive/9IN
But it will *only* contain sign bit and zeros.
So from the perspective of sign bit test, we're good:
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/FRzhttps://rise4fun.com/Alive/qBU
Superb!
So the simplest solution is to extend `reassociateShiftAmtsOfTwoSameDirectionShifts()` to also have a
sudo-analysis mode that will ignore extra-uses, and will only check
whether a) those are two right shifts and b) they end up with bitwidth(x)-1
shift amount and return either the original value that we sign-checking,
or null.
This does not have any functionality change for
the existing `reassociateShiftAmtsOfTwoSameDirectionShifts()`.
All that being said, as disscussed in the review, this yet again
increases usage of instsimplify in instcombine as utility.
Some day that may need to be reevaluated.
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=43595
Reviewers: spatel, efriedma, vsk
Reviewed By: spatel
Subscribers: xbolva00, hiraditya, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D68930
llvm-svn: 375371
True, no test coverage is being added here. But those non-canonical
predicates that are already handled here already have no test coverage
as far as i can tell. I tried to add tests for them, but all the patterns
already get handled elsewhere.
llvm-svn: 373962
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
Summary:
Removing an assumption (assert) that the CmpInst already has been
simplified in getFlippedStrictnessPredicateAndConstant. Solution is
to simply bail out instead of hitting the assertion. Instead we
assume that any profitable rewrite will happen in the next iteration
of InstCombine.
The reason why we can't assume that the CmpInst already has been
simplified is that the worklist does not guarantee such an ordering.
Solves https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=43376
Reviewers: spatel, lebedev.ri
Reviewed By: lebedev.ri
Subscribers: hiraditya, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D68022
llvm-svn: 372972
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/KtL
This also shows that the fold added in D67412 / r372257
was too specific, and the new fold allows those test cases
to be handled more generically, therefore i delete now-dead code.
This is yet again motivated by
D67122 "[UBSan][clang][compiler-rt] Applying non-zero offset to nullptr is undefined behaviour"
llvm-svn: 372912
This has the potential to uncover missed analysis/folds as shown in the
min/max code comment/test, but fewer restrictions on icmp folds should
be better in general to solve cases like:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=43310
llvm-svn: 372510
Related folds were added in:
rL125734
...the code comment about register pressure is discussed in
more detail in:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2698
But 10 years later, perf testing bzip2 with this change now
shows a slight (0.2% average) improvement on Haswell although
that's probably within test noise.
Given that this is IR canonicalization, we shouldn't be worried
about register pressure though; the backend should be able to
adjust for that as needed.
This is part of solving PR43310 the theoretically right way:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=43310
...ie, if we don't cripple basic transforms, then we won't
need to add special-case code to detect larger patterns.
rL371940 and rL371981 are related patches in this series.
llvm-svn: 372007
This fold and several others were added in:
rL125734 <https://reviews.llvm.org/rL125734>
...with no explanation for the one-use checks other than the code
comments about register pressure.
Given that this is IR canonicalization, we shouldn't be worried
about register pressure though; the backend should be able to
adjust for that as needed.
This is part of solving PR43310 the theoretically right way:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=43310
...ie, if we don't cripple basic transforms, then we won't
need to add special-case code to detect larger patterns.
rL371940 is a related patch in this series.
llvm-svn: 371981
This blob was written before match() existed, so it
could probably be reduced significantly.
But I suspect it isn't well tested, so tests would have
to be added to reduce risk from logic changes.
llvm-svn: 371978
This fold and several others were added in:
rL125734
...with no explanation for the one-use checks other than the code
comments about register pressure.
Given that this is IR canonicalization, we shouldn't be worried
about register pressure though; the backend should be able to
adjust for that as needed.
There are similar checks as noted with the TODO comments. I'm
hoping to remove those restrictions too, but if any of these
does cause a regression, it should be easier to correct by making
small, individual commits.
This is part of solving PR43310 the theoretically right way:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=43310
...ie, if we don't cripple basic transforms, then we won't
need to add special-case code to detect larger patterns.
llvm-svn: 371940
(srem X, pow2C) sgt/slt 0 can be reduced using bit hacks by masking
off the sign bit and the module (low) bits:
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/jSO
A '2' divisor allows slightly more folding:
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/tDBM
Any chance to remove an 'srem' use is probably worthwhile, but this is limited
to the one-use improvement case because doing more may expose other missing
folds. That means it does nothing for PR21929 yet:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=21929
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D67334
llvm-svn: 371610
A follow-up for r329011.
This may be changed to produce @llvm.sub.with.overflow in a later patch,
but for now just make things more consistent overall.
A few observations stem from this:
* There does not seem to be a similar one-instruction fold for uadd-overflow
* I'm not sure we'll want to canonicalize `B u> A` as `usub.with.overflow`,
so since the `icmp` here no longer refers to `sub`,
reconstructing `usub.with.overflow` will be problematic,
and will likely require standalone pass (similar to DivRemPairs).
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/Zqs
Name: (A - B) u> A --> B u> A
%t0 = sub i8 %A, %B
%r = icmp ugt i8 %t0, %A
=>
%r = icmp ugt i8 %B, %A
Name: (A - B) u<= A --> B u<= A
%t0 = sub i8 %A, %B
%r = icmp ule i8 %t0, %A
=>
%r = icmp ule i8 %B, %A
Name: C u< (C - D) --> C u< D
%t0 = sub i8 %C, %D
%r = icmp ult i8 %C, %t0
=>
%r = icmp ult i8 %C, %D
Name: C u>= (C - D) --> C u>= D
%t0 = sub i8 %C, %D
%r = icmp uge i8 %C, %t0
=>
%r = icmp uge i8 %C, %D
llvm-svn: 371101
Summary:
Finally, the fold i was looking forward to :)
The legality check is muddy, i doubt i've groked the full generalization,
but it handles all the cases i care about, and can come up with:
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/26j
I.e. we can perform the fold if **any** of the following is true:
* The shift amount is either zero or one less than widest bitwidth
* Either of the values being shifted has at most lowest bit set
* The value that is being shifted by `shl` (which is not truncated) should have no less leading zeros than the total shift amount;
* The value that is being shifted by `lshr` (which **is** truncated) should have no less leading zeros than the widest bit width minus total shift amount minus one
I strongly suspect there is some better generalization, but i'm not aware of it as of right now.
For now i also avoided using actual `computeKnownBits()`, but restricted it to constants.
Reviewers: spatel, nikic, xbolva00
Reviewed By: spatel
Subscribers: hiraditya, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D66383
llvm-svn: 370324
Summary:
`matchThreeWayIntCompare()` looks for
```
select i1 (a == b),
i32 Equal,
i32 (select i1 (a < b), i32 Less, i32 Greater)
```
but both of these selects/compares can be in it's commuted form,
so out of 8 variants, only the two most basic ones is handled.
This fixes regression being introduced in D66232.
Reviewers: spatel, nikic, efriedma, xbolva00
Reviewed By: spatel
Subscribers: hiraditya, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D66607
llvm-svn: 369841
Summary:
If we have e.g.:
```
%t = icmp ult i32 %x, 65536
%r = select i1 %t, i32 %y, i32 65535
```
the constants `65535` and `65536` are suspiciously close.
We could perform a transformation to deduplicate them:
```
Name: ult
%t = icmp ult i32 %x, 65536
%r = select i1 %t, i32 %y, i32 65535
=>
%t.inv = icmp ugt i32 %x, 65535
%r = select i1 %t.inv, i32 65535, i32 %y
```
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/avb
While this may seem esoteric, this should certainly be good for vectors
(less constant pool usage) and for opt-for-size - need to have only one constant.
But the real fun part here is that it allows further transformation,
in particular it finishes cleaning up the `clamp` folding,
see e.g. `canonicalize-clamp-with-select-of-constant-threshold-pattern.ll`.
We start with e.g.
```
%dont_need_to_clamp_positive = icmp sle i32 %X, 32767
%dont_need_to_clamp_negative = icmp sge i32 %X, -32768
%clamp_limit = select i1 %dont_need_to_clamp_positive, i32 -32768, i32 32767
%dont_need_to_clamp = and i1 %dont_need_to_clamp_positive, %dont_need_to_clamp_negative
%R = select i1 %dont_need_to_clamp, i32 %X, i32 %clamp_limit
```
without this patch we currently produce
```
%1 = icmp slt i32 %X, 32768
%2 = icmp sgt i32 %X, -32768
%3 = select i1 %2, i32 %X, i32 -32768
%R = select i1 %1, i32 %3, i32 32767
```
which isn't really a `clamp` - both comparisons are performed on the original value,
this patch changes it into
```
%1.inv = icmp sgt i32 %X, 32767
%2 = icmp sgt i32 %X, -32768
%3 = select i1 %2, i32 %X, i32 -32768
%R = select i1 %1.inv, i32 32767, i32 %3
```
and then the magic happens! Some further transform finishes polishing it and we finally get:
```
%t1 = icmp sgt i32 %X, -32768
%t2 = select i1 %t1, i32 %X, i32 -32768
%t3 = icmp slt i32 %t2, 32767
%R = select i1 %t3, i32 %t2, i32 32767
```
which is beautiful and just what we want.
Proofs for `getFlippedStrictnessPredicateAndConstant()` for de-canonicalization:
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/THl
Proofs for the fold itself: https://rise4fun.com/Alive/THl
Reviewers: spatel, dmgreen, nikic, xbolva00
Reviewed By: spatel
Subscribers: hiraditya, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D66232
llvm-svn: 369840
Started implementing the vector case and realized the scalar case hadn't handled the GEP producing a different type than the base correctly. It's entertaining seeing what slips through review when we're focused on the 'hard' parts. :(
Also adding an extra vector test as it happened to be in workspace and wasn't worth separating.
llvm-svn: 369795
This generalizes the isGEPKnownNonNull rule from ValueTracking to apply when we do not know if the base is non-null, and thus need to replace one condition with another.
The core notion is that since an inbounds GEP can only form null if the base pointer is null and the offset is zero. However, if the offset is non-zero, the the "inbounds" marker makes the result poison. Thus, we're free to ignore the case where the offset is non-zero. Similarly, there's no case under which a non-null base can result in a null result without generating poison.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D66608
llvm-svn: 369789
An intermediate extend is used to widen the narrow operand to the width of
the other (wider) operand. At that point, we have the same logic as the
existing transform that was restricted to folds of equal width zext/sext.
This mostly solves PR42700:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=42700
llvm-svn: 369519
1. Update function name and stale code comments.
2. Use variable names that are less ambiguous.
3. Move operand checks into the function as early exits.
llvm-svn: 369390
Summary:
This is continuation of D63829 / https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=42399
I thought naive pattern would solve my issue, but nope, it involved truncation,
thus more folds needed.. This isn't really the fold i'm interested in,
i need trunc-of-lshr, but i'we decided to start with `shl` because it's simpler.
In this case, no extra legality checks are needed:
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/CAb
We should be careful about not increasing instruction count,
since we need to produce `zext` because `and` is done in wider type.
Reviewers: spatel, nikic, xbolva00
Reviewed By: spatel
Subscribers: hiraditya, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D66057
llvm-svn: 369117
Instead of matching value and then blindly casting to BinaryOperator
just to get the opcode, just match instruction and do no cast.
Fixes https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=42962
llvm-svn: 368554
If one of the values being shifted is a constant, since the new shift
amount is known-constant, the new shift will end up being constant-folded
so, we don't need that one-use restriction then.
llvm-svn: 368519
That one-use restriction is not needed for correctness - we have already
ensured that one of the shifts will go away, so we know we won't increase
the instruction count. So there is no need for that restriction.
llvm-svn: 368518
Summary:
I have stumbled into this by accident while preparing to extend backend `x s% C ==/!= 0` handling.
While we did happen to handle this fold in most of the cases,
the folding is indirect - we fold `x u% y` to `x & (y-1)` (iff `y` is power-of-two),
or first turn `x s% -y` to `x u% y`; that does handle most of the cases.
But we can't turn `x s% INT_MIN` to `x u% -INT_MIN`,
and thus we end up being stuck with `(x s% INT_MIN) == 0`.
There is no such restriction for the more general fold:
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/IIeS
To be noted, the fold does not enforce that `y` is a constant,
so it may indeed increase instruction count.
This is consistent with what `x u% y`->`x & (y-1)` already does.
I think it makes sense, it's at most one (simple) extra instruction,
while `rem`ainder is really much more un-simple (and likely **very** costly).
Reviewers: spatel, RKSimon, nikic, xbolva00, craig.topper
Reviewed By: RKSimon
Subscribers: hiraditya, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D65046
llvm-svn: 367322
Extends the transform from:
rL364341
...to include another (more common?) pattern that tests whether a
value is a power-of-2 (including or excluding zero).
llvm-svn: 364856
Sanjay Patel