getNumUses is a linear time operation. It traverses the user linked list to the end and counts as it goes. Since we are only interested in small constant counts, we should use hasNUses or hasNUsesMore more that terminate the traversal as soon as it can provide the answer.
There are still two other locations in InstCombine, but changing those would force a rebase of D44266 which if accepted would remove them.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D44398
llvm-svn: 327315
Most of the folds based on SelectPatternResult belong in InstSimplify rather than
InstCombine, so the helper code should be available to other passes/analysis.
llvm-svn: 326812
The select may have been preventing a division by zero or INT_MIN/-1 so removing it might not be safe.
Fixes PR36362.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D43276
llvm-svn: 325148
This is the instcombine part of unsigned saturation canonicalization.
Backend patches already commited:
https://reviews.llvm.org/D37510https://reviews.llvm.org/D37534
It converts unsigned saturated subtraction patterns to forms recognized
by the backend:
(a > b) ? a - b : 0 -> ((a > b) ? a : b) - b)
(b < a) ? a - b : 0 -> ((a > b) ? a : b) - b)
(b > a) ? 0 : a - b -> ((a > b) ? a : b) - b)
(a < b) ? 0 : a - b -> ((a > b) ? a : b) - b)
((a > b) ? b - a : 0) -> - ((a > b) ? a : b) - b)
((b < a) ? b - a : 0) -> - ((a > b) ? a : b) - b)
((b > a) ? 0 : b - a) -> - ((a > b) ? a : b) - b)
((a < b) ? 0 : b - a) -> - ((a > b) ? a : b) - b)
Patch by Yulia Koval!
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D41480
llvm-svn: 324255
Three (or more) operand getelementptrs could plausibly also be handled, but
handling only two-operand fits in easily with the existing BinaryOperator
handling.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D39958
llvm-svn: 322930
There is precedence for factorization transforms in instcombine for FP ops with fast-math.
We also have similar logic in foldSPFofSPF().
It would take more work to add this to reassociate because that's specialized for binops,
and min/max are not binops (or even single instructions). Also, I don't have evidence that
larger min/max trees than this exist in real code, but if we find that's true, we might
want to reorganize where/how we do this optimization.
In the motivating example from https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=35717 , we have:
int test(int xc, int xm, int xy) {
int xk;
if (xc < xm)
xk = xc < xy ? xc : xy;
else
xk = xm < xy ? xm : xy;
return xk;
}
This patch solves that problem because we recognize more min/max patterns after rL321672
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/Qjnehttps://rise4fun.com/Alive/3yg
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D41603
llvm-svn: 321998
In the minimal case, this won't remove instructions, but it still improves
uses of existing values.
In the motivating example from PR35834, it does remove instructions, and
sets that case up to be optimized by something like D41603:
https://reviews.llvm.org/D41603
llvm-svn: 321936
Besides the bug of omitting the inverse transform of max(~a, ~b) --> ~min(a, b),
the use checking and operand creation were off. We were potentially creating
repeated identical instructions of existing values. This led to infinite
looping after I added the extra folds.
By using the simpler m_Not matcher and not creating new 'not' ops for a and b,
we avoid that problem. It's possible that not using IsFreeToInvert() here is
more limiting than the simpler matcher, but there are no tests for anything
more exotic. It's also possible that we should relax the use checking further
to handle a case like PR35834:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=35834
...but we can make that a follow-up if it is needed.
llvm-svn: 321882
Summary:
This patch optimizes a binop sandwiched between 2 selects with the same condition. Since we know its only used by the select we can propagate the appropriate input value from the earlier select.
As I'm writing this I realize I may need to avoid doing this for division in case the select was protecting a divide by zero?
Reviewers: spatel, majnemer
Reviewed By: majnemer
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D39999
llvm-svn: 318267
If a select instruction tests the returned flag of a cmpxchg instruction and
selects between the returned value of the cmpxchg instruction and its compare
operand, the result of the select will always be equal to its false value.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D39383
llvm-svn: 316994
Instead of creating a Constant and then calling m_APInt with it (which will always return true). Just create an APInt initially, and use that for the checks in isSelect01 function. If it turns out we do need the Constant, create it from the APInt.
This is a refactor for a future patch that will do some more checks of the constant values here.
llvm-svn: 312517
This patch teaches decomposeBitTestICmp to look through truncate instructions on the input to the compare. If a truncate is found it will now return the pre-truncated Value and appropriately extend the APInt mask.
This allows some code to be removed from InstSimplify that was doing this functionality.
This allows InstCombine's bit test combining code to match a pre-truncate Value with the same Value appear with an 'and' on another icmp. Or it allows us to combine a truncate to i16 and a truncate to i8. This also required removing the type check from the beginning of getMaskedTypeForICmpPair, but I believe that's ok because we still have to find two values from the input to each icmp that are equal before we'll do any transformation. So the type check was really just serving as an early out.
There was one user of decomposeBitTestICmp that didn't want to look through truncates, so I've added a flag to prevent that behavior when necessary.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D37158
llvm-svn: 312382
This code is double-dead:
1. We simplify all selects with constant true/false condition in InstSimplify.
I've minimized/moved the tests to show that works as expected.
2. All remaining vector selects with a constant condition are canonicalized to
shufflevector, so we really can't see this pattern.
llvm-svn: 312123
This was pretty close to working already. While I was here I went ahead and passed the ICmpInst pointer from the caller instead of doing a dyn_cast that can never fail.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D37237
llvm-svn: 311960
We were handling some vectors in foldSelectIntoOp, but not if the operand of the bin op was any kind of vector constant. This patch fixes it to treat vector splats the same as scalars.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D37232
llvm-svn: 311940
This is similar to what was already done in foldSelectICmpAndOr. Ultimately I'd like to see if we can call foldSelectICmpAnd from foldSelectIntoOp if we detect a power of 2 constant. This would allow us to remove foldSelectICmpAndOr entirely.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D36498
llvm-svn: 311362
Unfortunately, it looks like there's some other missed optimizations in the generated code for some of these cases. I'll try to look at some of those next.
llvm-svn: 310184
Previously we were always trying to emit the zext or truncate before any shift. This meant if the 'and' mask was larger than the size of the truncate we would skip the transformation.
Now we shift the result of the and right first leaving the bit within the range of the truncate.
This matches what we are doing in foldSelectICmpAndOr for the same problem.
llvm-svn: 310159
Summary:
This commit allows matchSelectPattern to recognize clamp of float
arguments in the presence of FMF the same way as already done for
integers.
This case is a little different though. With integers, given the
min/max pattern is recognized, DAGBuilder starts selecting MIN/MAX
"automatically". That is not the case for float, because for them only
full FMINNAN/FMINNUM/FMAXNAN/FMAXNUM ISD nodes exist and they do care
about NaNs. On the other hand, some backends (e.g. X86) have only
FMIN/FMAX nodes that do not care about NaNS and the former NAN/NUM
nodes are illegal thus selection is not happening. So I decided to do
such kind of transformation in IR (InstCombiner) instead of
complicating the logic in the backend.
Reviewers: spatel, jmolloy, majnemer, efriedma, craig.topper
Reviewed By: efriedma
Subscribers: hiraditya, javed.absar, n.bozhenov, llvm-commits
Patch by Andrei Elovikov <andrei.elovikov@intel.com>
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D33186
llvm-svn: 310054
This is a workaround for the bug described in PR31652 and
http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2017-July/115497.html. The temporary
solution is to add a function EqualityPropUnSafe. In EqualityPropUnSafe, for
some simple patterns we can know the equality comparison may contains undef,
so we regard such comparison as unsafe and will not do loop-unswitching for
them. We also need to disable the select simplification when one of select
operand is undef and its result feeds into equality comparison.
The patch cannot clear the safety issue caused by the bug, but it can suppress
the issue from happening to some extent.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D35811
llvm-svn: 309059
I recently changed m_One and m_AllOnes to use Constant::isOneValue/isAllOnesValue which work on floating point values too. The original implementation looked specifically for ConstantInt scalars and splats. So I'm guessing we are accidentally trying to issue sext/zexts on floating point types now.
Hopefully I figure out how to reproduce the failure from the PR soon.
llvm-svn: 307486
Previously the InstCombiner class contained a pointer to an IR builder that had been passed to the constructor. Sometimes this would be passed to helper functions as either a pointer or the pointer would be dereferenced to be passed by reference.
This patch makes it a reference everywhere including the InstCombiner class itself so there is more inconsistency. This a large, but mechanical patch. I've done very minimal formatting changes on it despite what clang-format wanted to do.
llvm-svn: 307451
Going through the Constant methods requires redetermining that the Constant is a ConstantInt and then calling isZero/isOne/isMinusOne.
llvm-svn: 307292
Summary:
This commit allows matchSelectPattern to recognize clamp of float
arguments in the presence of FMF the same way as already done for
integers.
This case is a little different though. With integers, given the
min/max pattern is recognized, DAGBuilder starts selecting MIN/MAX
"automatically". That is not the case for float, because for them only
full FMINNAN/FMINNUM/FMAXNAN/FMAXNUM ISD nodes exist and they do care
about NaNs. On the other hand, some backends (e.g. X86) have only
FMIN/FMAX nodes that do not care about NaNS and the former NAN/NUM
nodes are illegal thus selection is not happening. So I decided to do
such kind of transformation in IR (InstCombiner) instead of
complicating the logic in the backend.
Reviewers: spatel, jmolloy, majnemer, efriedma, craig.topper
Reviewed By: efriedma
Subscribers: hiraditya, javed.absar, n.bozhenov, llvm-commits
Patch by Andrei Elovikov <andrei.elovikov@intel.com>
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D33186
llvm-svn: 306525
This canonicalization was suggested in D33172 as a way to make InstCombine behavior more uniform.
We have this transform for icmp+br, so unless there's some reason that icmp+select should be
treated differently, we should do the same thing here.
The benefit comes from increasing the chances of creating identical instructions. This is shown in
the tests in logical-select.ll (PR32791). InstCombine doesn't fold those directly, but EarlyCSE
can simplify the identical cmps, and then InstCombine can fold the selects together.
The possible regression for the tests in select.ll raises questions about poison/undef:
http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2017-May/113261.html
...but that transform is just as likely to be triggered by this canonicalization as it is to be
missed, so we're just pointing out a commutation deficiency in the pattern matching:
https://reviews.llvm.org/rL228409
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D34242
llvm-svn: 306435
Summary:
InstCombine likes to turn (icmp eq (and X, C1), 0) into (icmp slt (trunc (X)), 0) sometimes. This breaks foldSelectICmpAndOr's ability to recognize (select (icmp eq (and X, C1), 0), Y, (or Y, C2))->(or (shl (and X, C1), C3), y).
This patch tries to recover this. I had to flip around some of the early out checks so that I could create a new And instruction during the compare processing without it possibly never getting used.
Reviewers: spatel, majnemer, davide
Reviewed By: spatel
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D34184
llvm-svn: 306029
Summary:
Previously this folding had no checks to see if it was going to result in less instructions. This was pointed out during the review of D34184
This patch adds code to count how many instructions its going to create vs how many its going to remove so we can make a proper decision.
Reviewers: spatel, majnemer
Reviewed By: spatel
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D34437
llvm-svn: 305926
Summary: This matches the behavior we already had for compares and makes us consistent everywhere.
Reviewers: dberlin, hfinkel, spatel
Reviewed By: dberlin
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D33604
llvm-svn: 305049
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
As discussed in:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=32486
...the canonicalization of vector select to shufflevector does not hold up
when undef elements are present in the condition vector.
Try to make the undef handling clear in the code and the LangRef.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D31980
llvm-svn: 300092
As the related tests show, we're not canonicalizing to this form for scalars or vectors yet,
but this solves the immediate problem in:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=32306
llvm-svn: 297989
This is part of trying to clean up our handling of min/max patterns in IR.
By converting these to canonical form, we're more likely to recognize them
because there are various places in InstCombine that don't use
matchSelectPattern or m_SMax and friends.
The backend fixups referenced in the now deleted TODO comment were added with:
https://reviews.llvm.org/rL291392https://reviews.llvm.org/rL289738
If there's any codegen fallout from this change, we should be able to address
it in DAGCombiner or target-specific lowering.
llvm-svn: 295758
Summary:
This is a fix for assertion failure in
`getInverseMinMaxSelectPattern` when ABS is passed in as a select pattern.
We should not be invoking the simplification rule for
ABS(MIN(~ x,y))) or ABS(MAX(~x,y)) combinations.
Added a test case which would cause an assertion failure without the patch.
Reviewers: sanjoy, majnemer
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D30051
llvm-svn: 295719
Summary: As per title. This will add the instructiions we are interested in in the worklist.
Reviewers: mehdi_amini, majnemer, andreadb
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D29081
llvm-svn: 292957
