The backend already does this via isNegatibleForFree(),
but we may want to alter the fneg IR canonicalizations
that currently exist, so we need to try harder to fold
fneg in IR to avoid regressions.
llvm-svn: 367194
(Y * (1.0 - Z)) + (X * Z) -->
Y - (Y * Z) + (X * Z) -->
Y + Z * (X - Y)
This is part of solving:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=42716
Factoring eliminates an instruction, so that should be a good canonicalization.
The potential conversion to FMA would be handled by the backend based on target
capabilities.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D65305
llvm-svn: 367101
This reverts commit bc4a63fd3c, this is a
speculative revert to fix a number of sanitizer bots (like
sanitizer-x86_64-linux-bootstrap-ubsan) that have started to see stage2
compiler crashes, presumably due to a miscompile.
llvm-svn: 367029
trunc (load X) --> load (bitcast X to narrow type)
We have this transform in DAGCombiner::ReduceLoadWidth(), but the truncated
load pattern can interfere with other instcombine transforms, so I'd like to
allow the fold sooner.
Example:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16739
...in that report, we have bitcasts bracketing these ops, so those could get
eliminated too.
We've generally ruled out widening of loads early in IR ( LoadCombine -
http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2016-September/105291.html ), but
that reasoning may not apply to narrowing if we can preserve information
such as the dereferenceable range.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D64432
llvm-svn: 367011
We can treat icmp eq X, MIN_UINT as icmp ule X, MIN_UINT and allow
it to merge with icmp ugt X, C. Similar for the other constants.
We can do simliar for icmp ne X, (U)INT_MIN/MAX in foldAndOfICmps. And we already handled UINT_MIN there.
Fixes PR42691.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D65017
llvm-svn: 366945
For equality, the function called getTrue/getFalse with the VT
of the comparison input. But getTrue/getFalse need the boolean VT.
So if this code ever executed, it would assert.
I believe these cases are removed by InstSimplify so we don't get here.
So this patch just fixes up an assert to exclude the equality
possibility and removes the broken code.
llvm-svn: 366649
AddOne/SubOne create new Constant objects. That seems heavy for
comparing ConstantInts which wrap APInts. Just do the math on
on the APInts and compare them.
llvm-svn: 366648
Summary:
If we have some pattern that leaves only some low bits set, and then performs
left-shift of those bits, if none of the bits that are left after the final
shift are modified by the mask, we can omit the mask.
There are many variants to this pattern:
f. `((x << MaskShAmt) a>> MaskShAmt) << ShiftShAmt`
All these patterns can be simplified to just:
`x << ShiftShAmt`
iff:
f. `(ShiftShAmt-MaskShAmt) s>= 0` (i.e. `ShiftShAmt u>= MaskShAmt`)
Normally, the inner pattern is sign-extend,
but for our purposes it's no different to other patterns:
alive proofs:
f: https://rise4fun.com/Alive/7U3
For now let's start with patterns where both shift amounts are variable,
with trivial constant "offset" between them, since i believe this is
both simplest to handle and i think this is most common.
But again, there are likely other variants where we could use
ValueTracking/ConstantRange to handle more cases.
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=42563
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D64524
llvm-svn: 366540
Summary:
If we have some pattern that leaves only some low bits set, and then performs
left-shift of those bits, if none of the bits that are left after the final
shift are modified by the mask, we can omit the mask.
There are many variants to this pattern:
e. `((x << MaskShAmt) l>> MaskShAmt) << ShiftShAmt`
All these patterns can be simplified to just:
`x << ShiftShAmt`
iff:
e. `(ShiftShAmt-MaskShAmt) s>= 0` (i.e. `ShiftShAmt u>= MaskShAmt`)
alive proofs:
e: https://rise4fun.com/Alive/0FT
For now let's start with patterns where both shift amounts are variable,
with trivial constant "offset" between them, since i believe this is
both simplest to handle and i think this is most common.
But again, there are likely other variants where we could use
ValueTracking/ConstantRange to handle more cases.
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=42563
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D64521
llvm-svn: 366539
Summary:
If we have some pattern that leaves only some low bits set, and then performs
left-shift of those bits, if none of the bits that are left after the final
shift are modified by the mask, we can omit the mask.
There are many variants to this pattern:
d. `(x & ((-1 << MaskShAmt) >> MaskShAmt)) << ShiftShAmt`
All these patterns can be simplified to just:
`x << ShiftShAmt`
iff:
d. `(ShiftShAmt-MaskShAmt) s>= 0` (i.e. `ShiftShAmt u>= MaskShAmt`)
alive proofs:
d: https://rise4fun.com/Alive/I5Y
For now let's start with patterns where both shift amounts are variable,
with trivial constant "offset" between them, since i believe this is
both simplest to handle and i think this is most common.
But again, there are likely other variants where we could use
ValueTracking/ConstantRange to handle more cases.
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=42563
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D64519
llvm-svn: 366538
Summary:
If we have some pattern that leaves only some low bits set, and then performs
left-shift of those bits, if none of the bits that are left after the final
shift are modified by the mask, we can omit the mask.
There are many variants to this pattern:
c. `(x & (-1 >> MaskShAmt)) << ShiftShAmt`
All these patterns can be simplified to just:
`x << ShiftShAmt`
iff:
c. `(ShiftShAmt-MaskShAmt) s>= 0` (i.e. `ShiftShAmt u>= MaskShAmt`)
alive proofs:
c: https://rise4fun.com/Alive/RgJh
For now let's start with patterns where both shift amounts are variable,
with trivial constant "offset" between them, since i believe this is
both simplest to handle and i think this is most common.
But again, there are likely other variants where we could use
ValueTracking/ConstantRange to handle more cases.
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=42563
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D64517
llvm-svn: 366537
Summary:
If we have some pattern that leaves only some low bits set, and then performs
left-shift of those bits, if none of the bits that are left after the final
shift are modified by the mask, we can omit the mask.
There are many variants to this pattern:
b. `(x & (~(-1 << maskNbits))) << shiftNbits`
All these patterns can be simplified to just:
`x << ShiftShAmt`
iff:
b. `(MaskShAmt+ShiftShAmt) u>= bitwidth(x)`
alive proof:
b: https://rise4fun.com/Alive/y8M
For now let's start with patterns where both shift amounts are variable,
with trivial constant "offset" between them, since i believe this is
both simplest to handle and i think this is most common.
But again, there are likely other variants where we could use
ValueTracking/ConstantRange to handle more cases.
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=42563
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D64514
llvm-svn: 366536
Summary:
If we have some pattern that leaves only some low bits set, and then performs
left-shift of those bits, if none of the bits that are left after the final
shift are modified by the mask, we can omit the mask.
There are many variants to this pattern:
a. `(x & ((1 << MaskShAmt) - 1)) << ShiftShAmt`
All these patterns can be simplified to just:
`x << ShiftShAmt`
iff:
a. `(MaskShAmt+ShiftShAmt) u>= bitwidth(x)`
alive proof:
a: https://rise4fun.com/Alive/wi9
Indeed, not all of these patterns are canonical.
But since this fold will only produce a single instruction
i'm really interested in handling even uncanonical patterns,
since i have this general kind of pattern in hotpaths,
and it is not totally outlandish for bit-twiddling code.
For now let's start with patterns where both shift amounts are variable,
with trivial constant "offset" between them, since i believe this is
both simplest to handle and i think this is most common.
But again, there are likely other variants where we could use
ValueTracking/ConstantRange to handle more cases.
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=42563
Reviewers: spatel, nikic, huihuiz, xbolva00
Reviewed By: xbolva00
Subscribers: efriedma, hiraditya, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D64512
llvm-svn: 366535
This makes the functions in Loads.h require a type to be specified
independently of the pointer Value so that when pointers have no structure
other than address-space, it can still do its job.
Most callers had an obvious memory operation handy to provide this type, but a
SROA and ArgumentPromotion were doing more complicated analysis. They get
updated to merge the properties of the various instructions they were
considering.
llvm-svn: 365468
Forming the canonical splat shuffle improves analysis and
may allow follow-on transforms (although some possibilities
are missing as shown in the test diffs).
The backend generically turns these patterns into build_vector,
so there should be no codegen regressions. All targets are
expected to be able to lower splats efficiently.
llvm-svn: 365379
We recognize a splat from element 0 in (VectorUtils) llvm::getSplatValue()
and also in ShuffleVectorInst::isZeroEltSplatMask(), so this converts
to that form for better matching.
The backend generically turns these patterns into build_vector,
so there should be no codegen difference.
llvm-svn: 365342
We allow forming a splat (broadcast) shuffle, but we were conservatively limiting
that to cases where all elements of the vector are specified. It should be safe
from a codegen perspective to allow undefined lanes of the vector because the
expansion of a splat shuffle would become the chain of inserts again.
Forming splat shuffles can reduce IR and help enable further IR transforms.
Motivating bugs:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=42174https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16739
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D63848
llvm-svn: 365147
I was actually wondering if there was some nicer way than m_Value()+cast,
but apparently what i was really "subconsciously" thinking about
was correctness issue.
hasNoUnsignedWrap()/hasNoUnsignedWrap() exist for Instruction,
not for BinaryOperator, so let's just use m_Instruction(),
thus both avoiding a cast, and a crash.
Fixes https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=42484,
https://bugs.chromium.org/p/oss-fuzz/issues/detail?id=15587
llvm-svn: 364915
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
Summary:
To be noted, this pattern is not unhandled by instcombine per-se,
it is somehow does end up being folded when one runs opt -O3,
but not if it's just -instcombine. Regardless, that fold is
indirect, depends on some other folds, and is thus blind
when there are extra uses.
This does address the regression being exposed in D63992.
https://godbolt.org/z/7DGltUhttps://rise4fun.com/Alive/EPO0
Fixes [[ https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=42459 | PR42459 ]]
Reviewers: spatel, nikic, huihuiz
Reviewed By: spatel
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D63993
llvm-svn: 364792
Summary:
Given pattern:
`icmp eq/ne (and ((x shift Q), (y oppositeshift K))), 0`
we should move shifts to the same hand of 'and', i.e. rewrite as
`icmp eq/ne (and (x shift (Q+K)), y), 0` iff `(Q+K) u< bitwidth(x)`
It might be tempting to not restrict this to situations where we know
we'd fold two shifts together, but i'm not sure what rules should there be
to avoid endless combine loops.
We pick the same shift that was originally used to shift the variable we picked to shift:
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/6x1v
Should fix [[ https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=42399 | PR42399]].
Reviewers: spatel, nikic, RKSimon
Reviewed By: spatel
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D63829
llvm-svn: 364791
This is the opposite direction of D62158 (we have to choose 1 form or the other).
Now that we have FMF on the select, this becomes more palatable. And the benefits
of having a single IR instruction for this operation (less chances of missing folds
based on extra uses, etc) overcome my previous comments about the potential advantage
of larger pattern matching/analysis.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D62414
llvm-svn: 364721
This follows up the transform from rL363956 to use the ctpop intrinsic when checking for power-of-2-or-zero.
This is matching the isPowerOf2() patterns used in PR42314:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=42314
But there's at least 1 instcombine follow-up needed to match the alternate form:
(v & (v - 1)) == 0;
We should have all of the backend expansions handled with:
rL364319
(x86-specific changes still needed for optimal code based on subtarget)
And the larger patterns to exclude zero as a power-of-2 are joining with this change after:
rL364153 ( D63660 )
rL364246
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D63777
llvm-svn: 364341
This is the Demorgan'd 'not' of the pattern handled in:
D63660 / rL364153
This is another intermediate IR step towards solving PR42314:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=42314
We can test if a value is not a power-of-2 using ctpop(X) > 1,
so combining that with an is-zero check of the input is the
same as testing if not exactly 1 bit is set:
(X == 0) || (ctpop(X) u> 1) --> ctpop(X) != 1
llvm-svn: 364246
Prefer the more exact intrinsic to remove a use of the input value
and possibly make further transforms easier (we will still need
to match patterns with funnel-shift of wider types as pieces of
bswap, especially if we want to canonicalize to funnel-shift with
constant shift amount). Discussed in D46760.
llvm-svn: 364187
This is another intermediate IR step towards solving PR42314:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=42314
We can test if a value is power-of-2-or-0 using ctpop(X) < 2,
so combining that with a non-zero check of the input is the
same as testing if exactly 1 bit is set:
(X != 0) && (ctpop(X) u< 2) --> ctpop(X) == 1
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D63660
llvm-svn: 364153
The form that compares against 0 is better because:
1. It removes a use of the input value.
2. It's the more standard form for this pattern: https://graphics.stanford.edu/~seander/bithacks.html#DetermineIfPowerOf2
3. It results in equal or better codegen (tested with x86, AArch64, ARM, PowerPC, MIPS).
This is a root cause for PR42314, but probably doesn't completely answer the codegen request:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=42314
Alive proof:
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/9kG
Name: is power-of-2
%neg = sub i32 0, %x
%a = and i32 %neg, %x
%r = icmp eq i32 %a, %x
=>
%dec = add i32 %x, -1
%a2 = and i32 %dec, %x
%r = icmp eq i32 %a2, 0
Name: is not power-of-2
%neg = sub i32 0, %x
%a = and i32 %neg, %x
%r = icmp ne i32 %a, %x
=>
%dec = add i32 %x, -1
%a2 = and i32 %dec, %x
%r = icmp ne i32 %a2, 0
llvm-svn: 363956
