When InstCombine initially populates the worklist, it already
performs constant folding and DCE. However, as the instructions
are initially visited in program order, this DCE can pick up only
the last instruction of a dead chain, the rest would only get
picked up in the main InstCombine run.
To avoid this, we instead perform the DCE in separate pass over the
collected instructions in reverse order, which will allow us to
pick up full dead instruction chains. We already need to do this
reverse iteration anyway to populate the worklist, so this
shouldn't add extra cost.
This by itself only fixes a small part of the problem though:
The same basic issue also applies during the main InstCombine loop.
We generally always want DCE to occur as early as possible,
because it will allow one-use folds to happen. Address this by also
performing DCE while adding deferred instructions to the main worklist.
This drops the number of tests that perform more than 2 InstCombine
iterations from ~80 to ~40. There's some spurious test changes due
to operand order / icmp toggling.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D75008
InstCombine operates on the basic premise that the operands of the
currently processed instruction have already been simplified. It
achieves this by pushing instructions to the worklist in reverse
program order, so that instructions are popped off in program order.
The worklist management in the main combining loop also makes sure
to uphold this invariant.
However, the same is not true for all the code that is performing
manual worklist management. The largest problem (addressed in this
patch) are instructions inserted by InstCombine's IRBuilder. These
will be pushed onto the worklist in order of insertion (generally
matching program order), which means that a) the users of the
original instruction will be visited first, as they are pushed later
in the main loop and b) the newly inserted instructions will be
visited in reverse program order.
This causes a number of problems: First, folds operate on instructions
that have not had their operands simplified, which may result in
optimizations being missed (ran into this in
https://reviews.llvm.org/D72048#1800424, which was the original
motivation for this patch). Additionally, this increases the amount
of folds InstCombine has to perform, both within one iteration, and
by increasing the number of total iterations.
This patch addresses the issue by adding a Worklist.AddDeferred()
method, which is used for instructions inserted by IRBuilder. These
will only be added to the real worklist after the combine finished,
and in reverse order, so they will end up processed in program order.
I should note that the same should also be done to nearly all other
uses of Worklist.Add(), but I'm starting with just this occurrence,
which has by far the largest test fallout.
Most of the test changes are due to
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=44521 or other cases where
we don't canonicalize something. These are neutral. One regression
has been addressed in D73575 and D73647. The remaining regression
in an shl+sdiv fold can't really be fixed without dropping another
transform, but does not seem particularly problematic in the first
place.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D73411
As it's causing some bot failures (and per request from kbarton).
This reverts commit r358543/ab70da07286e618016e78247e4a24fcb84077fda.
llvm-svn: 358546
The original patch was committed here:
rL344609
...and reverted:
rL344612
...because it did not properly check/test data types before calling
ComputeNumSignBits().
The tests that caused bot failures for the previous commit are
over-reaching front-end tests that run the entire -O optimizer
pipeline:
Clang :: CodeGen/builtins-systemz-zvector.c
Clang :: CodeGen/builtins-systemz-zvector2.c
I've added a negative test here to ensure coverage for that case.
The new early exit check also tests the type of the 'B' parameter,
so we don't waste time on matching if either value is unsuitable.
Original commit message:
This is part of solving PR37549:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=37549
The patterns shown here are a special case of something
that we already convert to select. Using ComputeNumSignBits()
catches that case (but not the more complicated motivating
patterns yet).
The backend has hooks/logic to convert back to logic ops
if that's better for the target.
llvm-svn: 345149
I noticed a missing check and added it at rL344610, but there actually
are codegen tests that will fail without that, so I'll edit those and
submit a fixed patch with more tests.
llvm-svn: 344612
This is part of solving PR37549:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=37549
The patterns shown here are a special case of something
that we already convert to select. Using ComputeNumSignBits()
catches that case (but not the more complicated motivating
patterns yet).
The backend has hooks/logic to convert back to logic ops
if that's better for the target.
llvm-svn: 344609
The previous code worked with vectors, but it failed when the
vector constants contained undef elements.
The matchers handle those cases.
llvm-svn: 335262
In post-commit review, Eric Christopher notes that many
new MSan warnings are being observed with this patch.
The probable reason is: if 'y' is undef here and we could
evaluate it twice and get different results.
We can't increase the number of uses of a value.
llvm-svn: 333631
Summary:
Finally fixes [[ https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6773 | PR6773 ]].
Now that the backend is all done, we can finally fold it!
The canonical unfolded masked merge pattern is
```(x & m) | (y & ~m)```
There is a second, equivalent variant:
```(x | ~m) & (y | m)```
Only one of them (the or-of-and's i think) is canonical.
And if the mask is not a constant, we should fold it to:
```((x ^ y) & M) ^ y```
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/ndQw
Reviewers: spatel, craig.topper
Reviewed By: spatel
Subscribers: nicholas, RKSimon, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D46814
llvm-svn: 333106
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
As noted in the code comment, I don't think we can do the same transform that we do for
*scalar* integers comparisons to *vector* integers comparisons because it might pessimize
the general case.
Exhibit A for an incomplete integer comparison ISA remains x86 SSE/AVX: it only has EQ and GT
for integer vectors.
But we should now recognize all the variants of this construct and produce the optimal code
for the cases shown in:
https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=26701
llvm-svn: 262424
Nikita Popov