As discussed on llvm-dev:
http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2019-February/130491.html
We can't remove the compare+select in the general case because
we are treating funnel shift like a standard instruction (as
opposed to a special instruction like select/phi).
That means that if one of the operands of the funnel shift is
poison, the result is poison regardless of whether we know that
the operand is actually unused based on the instruction's
particular semantics.
The motivating case for this transform is the more specific
rotate op (rather than funnel shift), and we are preserving the
fold for that case because there is no chance of introducing
extra poison when there is no anonymous extra operand to the
funnel shift.
llvm-svn: 354905
Rotate is a special-case of funnel shift that has different
poison constraints than the general case. That's not visible
yet in the existing tests, but it needs to be corrected.
llvm-svn: 354894
The m_APFloat matcher does not work with anything but strict
splat vector constants, so we could miss these folds and then
trigger an assertion in instcombine:
https://bugs.chromium.org/p/oss-fuzz/issues/detail?id=13201
The previous attempt at this in rL354406 had a logic bug that
actually triggered a regression test failure, but I failed to
notice it the first time.
llvm-svn: 354467
The m_APFloat matcher does not work with anything but strict
splat vector constants, so we could miss these folds and then
trigger an assertion in instcombine:
https://bugs.chromium.org/p/oss-fuzz/issues/detail?id=13201
llvm-svn: 354406
If a saturating add/sub has one constant operand, then we can
determine the possible range of outputs it can produce, and simplify
an icmp comparison based on that.
The implementation is based on a similar existing mechanism for
simplifying binary operator + icmps.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D55735
llvm-svn: 349369
If a saturating add/sub with a constant operand is compared to
another constant, we should be able to determine that the condition
is always true/false in some cases (but currently don't).
llvm-svn: 349261
Extracting from a splat constant is always handled by InstSimplify.
Move the test for this from InstCombine to InstSimplify to make
sure that stays true.
llvm-svn: 348423
These tests should probably go under a separate test file because they
should fold with just -constprop, but they're similar to the scalar
tests already in here.
llvm-svn: 348045
This is an almost direct move of the functionality from InstCombine to
InstSimplify. There's no reason not to do this in InstSimplify because
we never create a new value with this transform.
(There's a question of whether any dominance-based transform belongs in
either of these passes, but that's a separate issue.)
I've changed 1 of the conditions for the fold (1 of the blocks for the
branch must be the block we started with) into an assert because I'm not
sure how that could ever be false.
We need 1 extra check to make sure that the instruction itself is in a
basic block because passes other than InstCombine may be using InstSimplify
as an analysis on values that are not wired up yet.
The 3-way compare changes show that InstCombine has some kind of
phase-ordering hole. Otherwise, we would have already gotten the intended
final result that we now show here.
llvm-svn: 347896
These are part of D54666, so adding them here before the patch to
show the baseline (currently unoptimized) results.
Patch by: @nikic (Nikita Popov)
llvm-svn: 347331
This patch fixes the issue noticed in D54532.
The problem is that cst_pred_ty-based matchers like m_Zero() currently do not match
scalar undefs (as expected), but *do* match vector undefs. This may lead to optimization
inconsistencies in rare cases.
There is only one existing test for which output changes, reverting the change from D53205.
The reason here is that vector fsub undef, %x is no longer matched as an m_FNeg(). While I
think that the new output is technically worse than the previous one, it is consistent with
scalar, and I don't think it's really important either way (generally that undef should have
been folded away prior to reassociation.)
I've also added another test case for this issue based on InstructionSimplify. It took some
effort to find that one, as in most cases undef folds are either checked first -- and in the
cases where they aren't it usually happens to not make a difference in the end. This is the
only case I was able to come up with. Prior to this patch the test case simplified to undef
in the scalar case, but zeroinitializer in the vector case.
Patch by: @nikic (Nikita Popov)
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D54631
llvm-svn: 347318
This is a problem seen in common rotate idioms as noted in:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=34924
Note that we are not canonicalizing standard IR (shifts and logic) to the intrinsics yet.
(Although I've written this before...) I think this is the last step before we enable
that transform. Ie, we could regress code by doing that transform without this
simplification in place.
In PR34924, I questioned whether this is a valid transform for target-independent IR,
but I convinced myself this is ok. If we're speculating a funnel shift by turning cmp+br
into select, then SimplifyCFG has already determined that the transform is justified.
It's possible that SimplifyCFG is not taking into account profile or other metadata,
but if that's true, then it's a bug independent of funnel shifts.
Also, we do have CGP code to restore a guard like this around an intrinsic if it can't
be lowered cheaply. But that isn't necessary for funnel shift because the default
expansion in SelectionDAGBuilder includes this same cmp+select.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D54552
llvm-svn: 346960
This is NFCI for InstCombine because it calls InstSimplify,
so I left the tests for this transform there. As noted in
the code comment, we can allow this fold more often by using
FMF and/or value tracking.
llvm-svn: 346169
Remove duplicate tests from InstCombine that were added with
D50582. I left negative tests there to verify that nothing
in InstCombine tries to go overboard. If isKnownNeverNaN is
improved to handle the FP binops or other cases, we should
have coverage under InstSimplify, so we could remove more
duplicate tests from InstCombine at that time.
llvm-svn: 340279
This is a slight modification of the tests from D50582;
change half of the predicates to 'uno' so we have coverage
for that side too. All of the positive tests can fold to a
constant (true/false), so that should happen in instsimplify.
llvm-svn: 340276
Instcombine gets some, but not all, of these cases via
it's internal reassociation transforms. It fails in
all cases with vector types.
llvm-svn: 339168
