This fold is repeated/misplaced in instcombine, but I'm
not sure if it's safe to remove that yet because some
other folds appear to be asserting that the transform
has occurred within instcombine itself.
This isn't the best fix for PR37776, but it probably
hides the bug with the given code example:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=37776
We have another test to demonstrate the more general bug.
llvm-svn: 337127
This isn't the best fix for PR37776, but it probably
hides the bug with the given code example:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=37776
We have another test to demonstrate the more general
bug.
llvm-svn: 337126
isKnownNegation() is currently proposed as part of D48754,
but it could be used to make InstSimplify stronger independently
of any abs() improvements.
llvm-svn: 336822
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
For both operands are unsigned, the following optimizations are valid, and missing:
1. X > Y && X != 0 --> X > Y
2. X > Y || X != 0 --> X != 0
3. X <= Y || X != 0 --> true
4. X <= Y || X == 0 --> X <= Y
5. X > Y && X == 0 --> false
unsigned foo(unsigned x, unsigned y) { return x > y && x != 0; }
should fold to x > y, but I found we haven't done it right now.
besides, unsigned foo(unsigned x, unsigned y) { return x < y && y != 0; }
Has been folded to x < y, so there may be a bug.
Patch by: Li Jia He!
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D47922
llvm-svn: 335129
These are the baseline tests for the functional change in D47922.
Patch by Li Jia He!
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D48000
llvm-svn: 335128
Summary:
`%ret = add nuw i8 %x, C`
From [[ https://llvm.org/docs/LangRef.html#add-instruction | langref ]]:
nuw and nsw stand for “No Unsigned Wrap” and “No Signed Wrap”,
respectively. If the nuw and/or nsw keywords are present,
the result value of the add is a poison value if unsigned
and/or signed overflow, respectively, occurs.
So if `C` is `-1`, `%x` can only be `0`, and the result is always `-1`.
I'm not sure we want to use `KnownBits`/`LVI` here, because there is
exactly one possible value (all bits set, `-1`), so some other pass
should take care of replacing the known-all-ones with constant `-1`.
The `test/Transforms/InstCombine/set-lowbits-mask-canonicalize.ll` change *is* confusing.
What happening is, before this: (omitting `nuw` for simplicity)
1. First, InstCombine D47428/rL334127 folds `shl i32 1, %NBits`) to `shl nuw i32 -1, %NBits`
2. Then, InstSimplify D47883/rL334222 folds `shl nuw i32 -1, %NBits` to `-1`,
3. `-1` is inverted to `0`.
But now:
1. *This* InstSimplify fold `%ret = add nuw i32 %setbit, -1` -> `-1` happens first,
before InstCombine D47428/rL334127 fold could happen.
Thus we now end up with the opposite constant,
and it is all good: https://rise4fun.com/Alive/OA9https://rise4fun.com/Alive/sldC
Was mentioned in D47428 review.
Follow-up for D47883.
Reviewers: spatel, craig.topper
Reviewed By: spatel
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D47908
llvm-svn: 334298
%ret = add nuw i8 %x, C
From langref:
nuw and nsw stand for “No Unsigned Wrap” and “No Signed Wrap”,
respectively. If the nuw and/or nsw keywords are present,
the result value of the add is a poison value if unsigned
and/or signed overflow, respectively, occurs.
So if C is -1, %x can only be 0, and the result is always -1.
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/sldC
Was mentioned in D47428 review.
llvm-svn: 334236
Summary:
`%r = shl nuw i8 C, %x`
As per langref:
```
If the nuw keyword is present, then the shift produces
a poison value if it shifts out any non-zero bits.
```
Thus, if the sign bit is set on `C`, then `%x` can only be `0`,
which means that `%r` can only be `C`.
Or in other words, set sign bit means that the signed value
is negative, so the constant is `<= 0`.
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/WMkhttps://rise4fun.com/Alive/udv
Was mentioned in D47428 review.
We already handle the `0` constant, https://godbolt.org/g/UZq1sJ, so this only handles negative constants.
Could use computeKnownBits() / LazyValueInfo,
but the cost-benefit analysis (https://reviews.llvm.org/D47891)
suggests it isn't worth it.
Reviewers: spatel, craig.topper
Reviewed By: spatel
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D47883
llvm-svn: 334222
%r = shl nuw i8 C, %x
As per langref: If the nuw keyword is present, then the shift produces
a poison value if it shifts out any non-zero bits.
Thus, if the sign bit is set on C, then %x can only be 0,
which means that %r can only be C.
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/WMk
Was mentioned in D47428 review.
llvm-svn: 334200
We already do this for min/max (see the blob above the diff),
so we should do the same for abs/nabs.
A sign-bit check (<s 0) is used as a predicate for other IR
transforms and it's likely the best for codegen.
This might solve the motivating cases for D47037 and D47041,
but I think those patches still make sense. We can't guarantee
this canonicalization if the icmp has more than one use.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D47076
llvm-svn: 332819
In order to set breakpoints on labels and list source code around
labels, we need collect debug information for labels, i.e., label
name, the function label belong, line number in the file, and the
address label located. In order to keep these information in LLVM
IR and to allow backend to generate debug information correctly.
We create a new kind of metadata for labels, DILabel. The format
of DILabel is
!DILabel(scope: !1, name: "foo", file: !2, line: 3)
We hope to keep debug information as much as possible even the
code is optimized. So, we create a new kind of intrinsic for label
metadata to avoid the metadata is eliminated with basic block.
The intrinsic will keep existing if we keep it from optimized out.
The format of the intrinsic is
llvm.dbg.label(metadata !1)
It has only one argument, that is the DILabel metadata. The
intrinsic will follow the label immediately. Backend could get the
label metadata through the intrinsic's parameter.
We also create DIBuilder API for labels to be used by Frontend.
Frontend could use createLabel() to allocate DILabel objects, and use
insertLabel() to insert llvm.dbg.label intrinsic in LLVM IR.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D45024
Patch by Hsiangkai Wang.
llvm-svn: 331841
I was reminded today that this patch got reverted in r301885. I can no
longer reproduce the failure that caused the revert locally (...almost
one year later), and the patch applied pretty cleanly, so I guess we'll
see if the bots still get angry about it.
The original breakage was InstSimplify complaining (in "assertion
failed" form) about getting passed some crazy IR when running `ninja
check-sanitizer`. I'm unable to find traces of what, exactly, said crazy
IR was. I suppose we'll find out pretty soon if that's still the case.
:)
Original commit:
Author: gbiv
Date: Mon May 1 18:12:08 2017
New Revision: 301880
URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=301880&view=rev
Log:
[InstSimplify] Handle selects of GEPs with 0 offset
In particular (since it wouldn't fit nicely in the summary):
(select (icmp eq V 0) P (getelementptr P V)) -> (getelementptr P V)
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D31435
llvm-svn: 330667
This is the last step in getting constant pattern matchers to allow
undef elements in constant vectors.
I'm adding a dedicated m_ZeroInt() function and building m_Zero() from
that. In most cases, calling code can be updated to use m_ZeroInt()
directly when there's no need to match pointers, but I'm leaving that
efficiency optimization as a follow-up step because it's not always
clear when that's ok.
There are just enough icmp folds in InstSimplify that can be used for
integer or pointer types, that we probably still want a generic m_Zero()
for those cases. Otherwise, we could eliminate it (and possibly add a
m_NullPtr() as an alias for isa<ConstantPointerNull>()).
We're conservatively returning a full zero vector (zeroinitializer) in
InstSimplify/InstCombine on some of these folds (see diffs in InstSimplify),
but I'm not sure if that's actually necessary in all cases. We may be
able to propagate an undef lane instead. One test where this happens is
marked with 'TODO'.
llvm-svn: 330550
As shown in the code comment, we don't need all of 'fast',
but we do need reassoc + nsz + nnan.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D43765
llvm-svn: 327796
This matcher implementation appears to be slightly more efficient than
the generic constant check that it is replacing because every use was
for matching FP patterns, but the previous code would check int and
pointer type nulls too.
llvm-svn: 327627
From the LangRef definition for frem:
"The value produced is the floating-point remainder of the two operands.
This is the same output as a libm ‘fmod‘ function, but without any
possibility of setting errno. The remainder has the same sign as the
dividend. This instruction is assumed to execute in the default
floating-point environment."
llvm-svn: 327626
These should all be folded. The vector tests need to have
m_AnyZero updated to ignore undef elements, but we need to
be careful not to return the existing value in that case
and unintentionally propagate undef.
llvm-svn: 327585
As shown in:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=27151
...the existing fold could miscompile when X is NaN.
The fold was also dependent on 'ninf' but that's not necessary.
From IEEE-754 (with default rounding which we can assume for these opcodes):
"When the sum of two operands with opposite signs (or the difference of two
operands with like signs) is exactly zero, the sign of that sum (or difference)
shall be +0...However, x + x = x − (−x) retains the same sign as x even when
x is zero."
llvm-svn: 327575
