Summary:
Many languages have a three way comparison idiom where comparing two values
produces not a boolean, but a tri-state value. Typical values (e.g. as used in
the lcmp/fcmp bytecodes from Java) are -1 for less than, 0 for equality, and +1
for greater than.
We actually do a great job already of converting three way comparisons into
binary comparisons when the result produced has one a single use. Unfortunately,
such values can have more than one use, and in that case, our existing
optimizations break down.
The patch adds a peephole which converts a three-way compare + test idiom into a
binary comparison on the original inputs. It focused on replacing the test on
the result of the three way compare and does nothing about removing the three
way compare itself. That's left to other optimizations (which do actually kick
in commonly.)
We currently recognize one idiom on signed integer compare. In the future, we
plan to recognize and simplify other comparison idioms on
other signed/unsigned datatypes such as floats, vectors etc.
This is a resurrection of Philip Reames' original patch:
https://reviews.llvm.org/D19452
Reviewers: majnemer, apilipenko, reames, sanjoy, mkazantsev
Reviewed by: mkazantsev
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D34278
llvm-svn: 306100
I believe this code used to use APInt references which would have worked. But then they were changed to pointers to allow m_APInt to be used.
llvm-svn: 304875
Every other place in InstCombine that uses these methods in ValueTracking already pass this information. This makes the remaining sites consistent.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D33567
llvm-svn: 304018
We have wrappers for several other ValueTracking methods that take care of passing all of the analysis and assumption cache parameters. This extends it to isKnownToBeAPowerOfTwo.
llvm-svn: 303924
There's probably a lot more like this (see also comments in D33338 about responsibility),
but I suspect we don't usually get a visible manifestation.
Given the recent interest in improving InstCombine efficiency, another potential micro-opt
that could be repeated several times in this function: morph the existing icmp pred/operands
instead of creating a new instruction.
llvm-svn: 303860
The swapped operands in the first test is a manifestation of an
inefficiency for vectors that doesn't exist for scalars because
the IRBuilder checks for an all-ones mask for scalars, but not
vectors.
llvm-svn: 303818
This continues the changes started when computeSignBit was replaced with this new version of computeKnowBits.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D33431
llvm-svn: 303773
Summary:
Fix naming conventions and const correctness.
This completes the changes made in rL303029.
Patch by Yoav Ben-Shalom.
Reviewers: craig.topper
Reviewed By: craig.topper
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D33377
llvm-svn: 303529
The missing optimization for xor-of-icmps still needs to be added, but by
being more efficient (not generating unnecessary logic ops with constants)
we avoid the bug.
See discussion in post-commit comments:
https://reviews.llvm.org/D32143
llvm-svn: 303312
As noted in the post-commit comments in D32143, we should be
catching the constant operand cases sooner to be more efficient
and less likely to expose a missing fold.
llvm-svn: 303309
This adds routines for reseting KnownBits to unknown, making the value all zeros or all ones. It also adds methods for querying if the value is zero, all ones or unknown.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D32637
llvm-svn: 302262
This patch introduces a new KnownBits struct that wraps the two APInt used by computeKnownBits. This allows us to treat them as more of a unit.
Initially I've just altered the signatures of computeKnownBits and InstCombine's simplifyDemandedBits to pass a KnownBits reference instead of two separate APInt references. I'll do similar to the SelectionDAG version of computeKnownBits/simplifyDemandedBits as a separate patch.
I've added a constructor that allows initializing both APInts to the same bit width with a starting value of 0. This reduces the repeated pattern of initializing both APInts. Once place default constructed the APInts so I added a default constructor for those cases.
Going forward I would like to add more methods that will work on the pairs. For example trunc, zext, and sext occur on both APInts together in several places. We should probably add a clear method that can be used to clear both pieces. Maybe a method to check for conflicting information. A method to return (Zero|One) so we don't write it out everywhere. Maybe a method for (Zero|One).isAllOnesValue() to determine if all bits are known. I'm sure there are many other methods we can come up with.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D32376
llvm-svn: 301432
getSignBit is a static function that creates an APInt with only the sign bit set. getSignMask seems like a better name to convey its functionality. In fact several places use it and then store in an APInt named SignMask.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D32108
llvm-svn: 300856
We currently only support folding a subtract into a select but not a PHI. This fixes that.
I had to fix an assumption in FoldOpIntoPhi that assumed the PHI node was always in operand 0. Now we pass it in like we do for FoldOpIntoSelect. But we still require some dancing to find the Constant when we create the BinOp or ConstantExpr. This is based code is similar to what we do for selects.
Since I touched all call sites, this also renames FoldOpIntoPhi to foldOpIntoPhi to match coding standards.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D31686
llvm-svn: 300363
Switch from Euclid's algorithm to Stein's algorithm for computing GCD. This
avoids the (expensive) APInt division operation in favour of bit operations.
Remove all memory allocation from within the GCD loop by tweaking our `lshr`
implementation so it can operate in-place.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D31968
llvm-svn: 300252
The first thing it did was get the User for the Use to get the instruction back. This requires looking through the Uses for the User using the waymarking walk. That's pretty fast, but its probably still better to just pass the Instruction we already had.
llvm-svn: 298772
Summary:
When InstCombine is optimizing certain select-cmp-br patterns
it replaces the result of the select in uses outside of the
basic block containing the select. This is only legal if the
path from the select to the outside use is disjoint from all
other paths out from the originating basic block.
The problem found was that InstCombiner::replacedSelectWithOperand
did not consider the case when both edges out from the br pointed
to the same label. In that case the paths aren't disjoint and the
transformation is illegal. This patch avoids the faulty rewrites
by verifying that there is a single flow to the successor where
we want to replace uses.
Reviewers: llvm-commits, spatel, majnemer
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D30455
llvm-svn: 296752
transformToIndexedCompare
If they don't have the same type, the size of the constant
index would need to be adjusted (and this wouldn't be always
possible).
Alternatively we could try the analysis with the initial
RHS value, which would guarantee that the two sides have
the same type. However it is unlikely that in practice this
would pass our transformation requirements.
Fixes PR31808 (https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=31808).
llvm-svn: 293629
This is a minimal patch to avoid the infinite loop in:
https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=31751
But the general problem is bigger: we're not canonicalizing all of the min/max forms reported
by value tracking's matchSelectPattern(), and we don't define min/max consistently. Some code
uses matchSelectPattern(), other code uses matchers like m_Umax, and others have their own
inline definitions which may be subtly different from any of the above.
The reason that the test cases in this patch need a cast op to trigger is because we don't
(yet) canonicalize all min/max forms based on matchSelectPattern() in
canonicalizeMinMaxWithConstant(), but we do make min/max+cast transforms based on
matchSelectPattern() in visitSelectInst().
The location of the icmp transforms that trigger the inf-loop seems arbitrary at best, so
I'm moving those behind the min/max fence in visitICmpInst() as the quick fix.
llvm-svn: 293345
Allows LLVM to optimize sequences like the following:
%add = add nuw i32 %x, 1
%cmp = icmp ugt i32 %add, %y
Into:
%cmp = icmp uge i32 %x, %y
Previously, only signed comparisons were being handled.
Decrements could also be handled, but 'sub nuw %x, 1' is currently canonicalized to
'add %x, -1' in InstCombineAddSub, losing the nuw flag. Removing that canonicalization
seems like it might have far-reaching ramifications so I kept this simple for now.
Patch by Matti Niemenmaa!
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D24700
llvm-svn: 291975
Min/max canonicalization (r287585) exposes the fact that we're missing combines for min/max patterns.
This patch won't solve the example that was attached to that thread, so something else still needs fixing.
The line between InstCombine and InstSimplify gets blurry here because sometimes the icmp instruction that
we want to fold to already exists, but sometimes it's the swapped form of what we want.
Corresponding changes for smax/umin/umax to follow.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D27531
llvm-svn: 289855
After r289755, the AssumptionCache is no longer needed. Variables affected by
assumptions are now found by using the new operand-bundle-based scheme. This
new scheme is more computationally efficient, and also we need much less
code...
llvm-svn: 289756
At least the plugin used by the LibreOffice build
(<https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Development/Clang_plugins>) indirectly
uses those members (through inline functions in LLVM/Clang include files in turn
using them), but they are not exported by utils/extract_symbols.py on Windows,
and accessing data across DLL/EXE boundaries on Windows is generally
problematic.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D26671
llvm-svn: 289647
Instead, expose whether the current type is an array or a struct, if an array
what the upper bound is, and if a struct the struct type itself. This is
in preparation for a later change which will make PointerType derive from
Type rather than SequentialType.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D26594
llvm-svn: 288458
These 2 helper functions were already using APInt internally, so just
change the API and caller to allow folds for splats. The scalar
regression tests look quite thorough, so I just added a couple of
tests to prove that vectors are handled too.
These folds should be grouped with the other cmp+shift folds though.
That can be an NFC follow-up.
llvm-svn: 281663
This pattern is matched in foldICmpBinOpEqualityWithConstant() and already works
with vectors too. I changed some comments over there to point out the current
location. The tests for this transform are currently in 'sub.ll'.
Note that the remaining folds in this block all require a sub too, so they should
get grouped with the other icmp(sub) patterns.
llvm-svn: 281627
This is a big glob of transforms that probably should work for vectors,
but currently they are disallowed because of ConstantInt guards.
llvm-svn: 281614
Everything under foldICmpInstWithConstant() should now be working for
splat vectors via m_APInt matchers. Ie, I've removed all of the FIXMEs
that I added while cleaning that section up. Note that not all of the
associated FIXMEs in the regression tests are gone though, because some
of the tests require earlier folds that are still scalar-only.
llvm-svn: 281139
I introduced this potential bug by missing this diff in:
https://reviews.llvm.org/rL280873
...however, I'm not sure how to reach this code path with a regression test.
We may be able to remove this code and assume that the transform to a constant
is always handled by InstSimplify?
llvm-svn: 280964
This is a revert of r280676 which was a revert of r280637;
ie, this is r280637 again. It was speculatively reverted to
help debug buildbot failures.
llvm-svn: 280861
The transform in question:
icmp (and (trunc W), C2), C1 -> icmp (and W, C2'), C1'
...is still not enabled for vectors, thus no functional change intended.
It's not clear to me if this is a good transform for vectors or even
scalars in general. Changing that behavior may be a follow-on patch.
llvm-svn: 280627
While removing a scalar shackle from an icmp fold, I noticed that I couldn't find any tests to trigger
this code path.
The 'and' shrinking transform should be handled by InstCombiner::foldCastedBitwiseLogic()
or eliminated with InstSimplify. The icmp narrowing is part of InstCombiner::foldICmpWithCastAndCast().
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D24031
llvm-svn: 280370
This is prep work before changing the callers to also use APInt which will
allow folds for splat vectors. Currently, the callers have ConstantInt
guards in place, so no functional change intended with this commit.
llvm-svn: 280282
Like other recent changes near here, the goal is to allow vector types for
all of these folds. Splitting things up makes it easier to incrementally
enhance the code and easier to read.
llvm-svn: 279851
Removing the redundant 'CmpRHSV' local variable exposes a bug in the caller
foldICmpShrConstant() - it was sending in the div constant instead of the
cmp constant. But I have not been able to expose this in a regression test
yet - the affected folds all appear to be handled before we ever reach this
code. I'll keep trying to find a case as I make changes to allow vector folds
in both functions.
llvm-svn: 279828
There was no logic in foldICmpDivConstant, so no need for a separate function.
The code is directly copy/pasted, so further cleanups to follow.
llvm-svn: 279685
I deleted a fold from InstCombine at:
https://reviews.llvm.org/rL279568
because it (like any InstCombine to a constant?) should always happen in InstSimplify,
however, it's not obvious what the assumptions are in the remaining code.
Add a comment and assert to make it clearer.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D23819
llvm-svn: 279626
There will only be 3 lines of code in foldICmpShrConst() when the cleanup is done,
so it doesn't make much sense to have a separate function for a single fold.
llvm-svn: 279575
AFAICT, these already worked in all cases for scalar types, and I enhanced
the code to work for vector types in:
https://reviews.llvm.org/rL279543
llvm-svn: 279568
