This should be the last step needed to solve the problem in the
description of PR44153:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=44153
If we're casting an FP value to int, testing its signbit, and then
choosing between a value and its negated value, that's a
complicated way of saying "copysign":
(bitcast X) < 0 ? -TC : TC --> copysign(TC, X)
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D72643
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
As discussed in PR42696:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=42696
...but won't help that case yet.
We have an odd situation where a select operand equivalence fold was
implemented in InstSimplify when it could have been done more generally
in InstCombine if we allow dropping of {nsw,nuw,exact} from a binop operand.
Here's an example:
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/Xplr
%cmp = icmp eq i32 %x, 2147483647
%add = add nsw i32 %x, 1
%sel = select i1 %cmp, i32 -2147483648, i32 %add
=>
%sel = add i32 %x, 1
I've left the InstSimplify code in place for now, but my guess is that we'd
prefer to remove that as a follow-up to save on code duplication and
compile-time.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D65576
llvm-svn: 367695
As it's causing some bot failures (and per request from kbarton).
This reverts commit r358543/ab70da07286e618016e78247e4a24fcb84077fda.
llvm-svn: 358546
add A, sext(B) --> sub A, zext(B)
We have to choose 1 of these forms, so I'm opting for the
zext because that's easier for value tracking.
The backend should be prepared for this change after:
D57401
rL353433
This is also a preliminary step towards reducing the amount
of bit hackery that we do in IR to optimize icmp/select.
That should be waiting to happen at a later optimization stage.
The seeming regression in the fuzzer test was discussed in:
D58359
We were only managing that fold in instcombine by luck, and
other passes should be able to deal with that better anyway.
llvm-svn: 354748
Bitcast and certain Ptr2Int/Int2Ptr instructions will not alter the
value of their operand and can therefore be looked through when we
determine non-nullness.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D54956
llvm-svn: 352293
Summary: This restores the combine that was reverted in r341883. The infinite loop from the failing test no longer occurs due to changes from r342163.
Reviewers: spatel, dmgreen
Reviewed By: spatel
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D52070
llvm-svn: 342797
Summary:
Revert min/max changes in rL341674 dues to high compile times causing timeouts (PR38897).
Checking in to unblock failing builds. Patch available for post-commit review and re-revert once resolved.
Working on a smaller reproducer for PR38897.
Reviewers: craig.topper, spatel
Subscribers: sanjoy, jlebar, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D51897
llvm-svn: 341883
If the ~X wasn't able to simplify above the max/min, we might be able to simplify it by moving it below the max/min.
I had to modify the ~(min/max ~X, Y) transform to prevent getting stuck in a loop when we saw the new ~(max/min X, ~Y) before the ~Y had been folded away to remove the new not.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D51398
llvm-svn: 341674
Summary:
Support for this option is needed for building Linux kernel.
This is a very frequently requested feature by kernel developers.
More details : https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/4/4/601
GCC option description for -fdelete-null-pointer-checks:
This Assume that programs cannot safely dereference null pointers,
and that no code or data element resides at address zero.
-fno-delete-null-pointer-checks is the inverse of this implying that
null pointer dereferencing is not undefined.
This feature is implemented in LLVM IR in this CL as the function attribute
"null-pointer-is-valid"="true" in IR (Under review at D47894).
The CL updates several passes that assumed null pointer dereferencing is
undefined to not optimize when the "null-pointer-is-valid"="true"
attribute is present.
Reviewers: t.p.northover, efriedma, jyknight, chandlerc, rnk, srhines, void, george.burgess.iv
Reviewed By: efriedma, george.burgess.iv
Subscribers: eraman, haicheng, george.burgess.iv, drinkcat, theraven, reames, sanjoy, xbolva00, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D47895
llvm-svn: 336613
These are all but 1 of the select-of-constant tests that appear
to be transformed within foldSelectICmpAnd() and the block above
it predicated by decomposeBitTestICmp().
As discussed in D45862 (and can be seen in several tests here),
we probably want to stop doing those transforms because they
can increase the instruction count without benefitting other
passes or codegen.
The 1 test not included here is a urem test where the bit hackery
allows us to remove a urem. To preserve killing that urem, we
should do some stronger known-bits analysis or pattern matching of
'urem x, (select-of-pow2-constants)'.
llvm-svn: 330768
The first step in fixing problems raised in D45862
is to make the problems visible. Now we can more easily
see/update cases where selects have been turned into
multiple instructions with no apparent improvement in
analysis or benefits for other passes (vectorization).
llvm-svn: 330731
Summary:
This patch optimizes a binop sandwiched between 2 selects with the same condition. Since we know its only used by the select we can propagate the appropriate input value from the earlier select.
As I'm writing this I realize I may need to avoid doing this for division in case the select was protecting a divide by zero?
Reviewers: spatel, majnemer
Reviewed By: majnemer
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D39999
llvm-svn: 318267
We were handling some vectors in foldSelectIntoOp, but not if the operand of the bin op was any kind of vector constant. This patch fixes it to treat vector splats the same as scalars.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D37232
llvm-svn: 311940
This canonicalization was suggested in D33172 as a way to make InstCombine behavior more uniform.
We have this transform for icmp+br, so unless there's some reason that icmp+select should be
treated differently, we should do the same thing here.
The benefit comes from increasing the chances of creating identical instructions. This is shown in
the tests in logical-select.ll (PR32791). InstCombine doesn't fold those directly, but EarlyCSE
can simplify the identical cmps, and then InstCombine can fold the selects together.
The possible regression for the tests in select.ll raises questions about poison/undef:
http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2017-May/113261.html
...but that transform is just as likely to be triggered by this canonicalization as it is to be
missed, so we're just pointing out a commutation deficiency in the pattern matching:
https://reviews.llvm.org/rL228409
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D34242
llvm-svn: 306435
As discussed in:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=32486
...the canonicalization of vector select to shufflevector does not hold up
when undef elements are present in the condition vector.
Try to make the undef handling clear in the code and the LangRef.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D31980
llvm-svn: 300092
This is part of trying to clean up our handling of min/max patterns in IR.
By converting these to canonical form, we're more likely to recognize them
because there are various places in InstCombine that don't use
matchSelectPattern or m_SMax and friends.
The backend fixups referenced in the now deleted TODO comment were added with:
https://reviews.llvm.org/rL291392https://reviews.llvm.org/rL289738
If there's any codegen fallout from this change, we should be able to address
it in DAGCombiner or target-specific lowering.
llvm-svn: 295758
The code comments didn't match the code logic, and we didn't actually distinguish the fake unary (not/neg/fneg)
operators from arguments. Adding another level to the weighting scheme provides more structure and can help
simplify the pattern matching in InstCombine and other places.
I fixed regressions that would have shown up from this change in:
rL290067
rL290127
But that doesn't mean there are no pattern-matching logic holes left; some combines may just be missing regression tests.
Should fix:
https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=28296
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D27933
llvm-svn: 294049
Also, add the corresponding match to the AssumptionCache's 'Affected Values' list.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D28485
llvm-svn: 292239
I think the former 'test50' had a typo making it functionally equivalent
to the former 'test49'; changed the predicate to provide more coverage.
llvm-svn: 285706
Try harder to detect obfuscated min/max patterns: the initial pattern was added with D9352 / rL236202.
There was a bug fix for PR27137 at rL264996, but I think we can do better by folding the corresponding
smax pattern and commuted variants.
The codegen tests demonstrate the effect of ValueTracking on the backend via SelectionDAGBuilder. We
can't expose these differences minimally in IR because we don't have smin/smax intrinsics for IR.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D26091
llvm-svn: 285499
Sanjay Patel