[InstCombine] use commutative matchers for patterns with commutative operators

Background/motivation - I was circling back around to:
https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=28296

I made a simple patch for that and noticed some regressions, so added test cases for
those with rL281055, and this is hopefully the minimal fix for just those cases.

But as you can see from the surrounding untouched folds, we are missing commuted patterns
all over the place, and of course there are no regression tests to cover any of those cases.

We could sprinkle "m_c_" dust all over this file and catch most of the missing folds, but 
then we still wouldn't have test coverage, and we'd still miss some fraction of commuted 
patterns because they require adjustments to the match order.

I'm aware of the concern about the potential compile-time performance impact of adding 
matches like this (currently being discussed on llvm-dev), but I don't think there's any
evidence yet to suggest that handling commutative pattern matching more thoroughly is not
a worthwhile goal of InstCombine.

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D24419

llvm-svn: 290067

1 files changed, 35 insertions, 20 deletions

diff --git a/llvm/lib/Transforms/InstCombine/InstCombineAndOrXor.cpp b/llvm/lib/Transforms/InstCombine/InstCombineAndOrXor.cpp
index e1e060b283e..cbcd459f582 100644
--- a/llvm/lib/Transforms/InstCombine/InstCombineAndOrXor.cpp
+++ b/llvm/lib/Transforms/InstCombine/InstCombineAndOrXor.cpp
@@ -1345,6 +1345,9 @@ static Instruction *foldBoolSextMaskToSelect(BinaryOperator &I) {
   return nullptr;
 }
 
+// FIXME: We use commutative matchers (m_c_*) for some, but not all, matches
+// here. We should standardize that construct where it is needed or choose some
+// other way to ensure that commutated variants of patterns are not missed.
 Instruction *InstCombiner::visitAnd(BinaryOperator &I) {
   bool Changed = SimplifyAssociativeOrCommutative(I);
   Value *Op0 = I.getOperand(0), *Op1 = I.getOperand(1);
@@ -1543,8 +1546,9 @@ Instruction *InstCombiner::visitAnd(BinaryOperator &I) {
       return BinaryOperator::CreateAnd(A, B);
 
     // ((~A) ^ B) & (A | B) -> (A & B)
+    // ((~A) ^ B) & (B | A) -> (A & B)
     if (match(Op0, m_Xor(m_Not(m_Value(A)), m_Value(B))) &&
-        match(Op1, m_Or(m_Specific(A), m_Specific(B))))
+        match(Op1, m_c_Or(m_Specific(A), m_Specific(B))))
       return BinaryOperator::CreateAnd(A, B);
   }
 
@@ -2161,6 +2165,9 @@ Instruction *InstCombiner::FoldXorWithConstants(BinaryOperator &I, Value *Op,
   return nullptr;
 }
 
+// FIXME: We use commutative matchers (m_c_*) for some, but not all, matches
+// here. We should standardize that construct where it is needed or choose some
+// other way to ensure that commutated variants of patterns are not missed.
 Instruction *InstCombiner::visitOr(BinaryOperator &I) {
   bool Changed = SimplifyAssociativeOrCommutative(I);
   Value *Op0 = I.getOperand(0), *Op1 = I.getOperand(1);
@@ -2250,8 +2257,9 @@ Instruction *InstCombiner::visitOr(BinaryOperator &I) {
       match(Op1, m_Not(m_Specific(A))))
     return BinaryOperator::CreateOr(Builder->CreateNot(A), B);
 
-  // (A & (~B)) | (A ^ B) -> (A ^ B)
-  if (match(Op0, m_And(m_Value(A), m_Not(m_Value(B)))) &&
+  // (A & ~B) | (A ^ B) -> (A ^ B)
+  // (~B & A) | (A ^ B) -> (A ^ B)
+  if (match(Op0, m_c_And(m_Value(A), m_Not(m_Value(B)))) &&
       match(Op1, m_Xor(m_Specific(A), m_Specific(B))))
     return BinaryOperator::CreateXor(A, B);
 
@@ -2427,14 +2435,15 @@ Instruction *InstCombiner::visitOr(BinaryOperator &I) {
         return BinaryOperator::CreateOr(Not, Op0);
       }
 
-  // (A & B) | ((~A) ^ B) -> (~A ^ B)
-  if (match(Op0, m_And(m_Value(A), m_Value(B))) &&
-      match(Op1, m_Xor(m_Not(m_Specific(A)), m_Specific(B))))
-    return BinaryOperator::CreateXor(Builder->CreateNot(A), B);
-
-  // ((~A) ^ B) | (A & B) -> (~A ^ B)
-  if (match(Op0, m_Xor(m_Not(m_Value(A)), m_Value(B))) &&
-      match(Op1, m_And(m_Specific(A), m_Specific(B))))
+  // (A & B) | (~A ^ B) -> (~A ^ B)
+  // (A & B) | (B ^ ~A) -> (~A ^ B)
+  // (B & A) | (~A ^ B) -> (~A ^ B)
+  // (B & A) | (B ^ ~A) -> (~A ^ B)
+  // The match order is important: match the xor first because the 'not'
+  // operation defines 'A'. We do not need to match the xor as Op0 because the
+  // xor was canonicalized to Op1 above.
+  if (match(Op1, m_c_Xor(m_Not(m_Value(A)), m_Value(B))) &&
+      match(Op0, m_c_And(m_Specific(A), m_Specific(B))))
     return BinaryOperator::CreateXor(Builder->CreateNot(A), B);
 
   if (SwappedForXor)
@@ -2514,6 +2523,9 @@ Instruction *InstCombiner::visitOr(BinaryOperator &I) {
   return Changed ? &I : nullptr;
 }
 
+// FIXME: We use commutative matchers (m_c_*) for some, but not all, matches
+// here. We should standardize that construct where it is needed or choose some
+// other way to ensure that commutated variants of patterns are not missed.
 Instruction *InstCombiner::visitXor(BinaryOperator &I) {
   bool Changed = SimplifyAssociativeOrCommutative(I);
   Value *Op0 = I.getOperand(0), *Op1 = I.getOperand(1);
@@ -2736,20 +2748,22 @@ Instruction *InstCombiner::visitXor(BinaryOperator &I) {
         return BinaryOperator::CreateXor(A, B);
     }
     // (A | ~B) ^ (~A | B) -> A ^ B
-    if (match(Op0I, m_Or(m_Value(A), m_Not(m_Value(B)))) &&
-        match(Op1I, m_Or(m_Not(m_Specific(A)), m_Specific(B)))) {
+    // (~B | A) ^ (~A | B) -> A ^ B
+    if (match(Op0I, m_c_Or(m_Value(A), m_Not(m_Value(B)))) &&
+        match(Op1I, m_Or(m_Not(m_Specific(A)), m_Specific(B))))
       return BinaryOperator::CreateXor(A, B);
-    }
+
     // (~A | B) ^ (A | ~B) -> A ^ B
     if (match(Op0I, m_Or(m_Not(m_Value(A)), m_Value(B))) &&
         match(Op1I, m_Or(m_Specific(A), m_Not(m_Specific(B))))) {
       return BinaryOperator::CreateXor(A, B);
     }
     // (A & ~B) ^ (~A & B) -> A ^ B
-    if (match(Op0I, m_And(m_Value(A), m_Not(m_Value(B)))) &&
-        match(Op1I, m_And(m_Not(m_Specific(A)), m_Specific(B)))) {
+    // (~B & A) ^ (~A & B) -> A ^ B
+    if (match(Op0I, m_c_And(m_Value(A), m_Not(m_Value(B)))) &&
+        match(Op1I, m_And(m_Not(m_Specific(A)), m_Specific(B))))
       return BinaryOperator::CreateXor(A, B);
-    }
+
     // (~A & B) ^ (A & ~B) -> A ^ B
     if (match(Op0I, m_And(m_Not(m_Value(A)), m_Value(B))) &&
         match(Op1I, m_And(m_Specific(A), m_Not(m_Specific(B))))) {
@@ -2785,9 +2799,10 @@ Instruction *InstCombiner::visitXor(BinaryOperator &I) {
       return BinaryOperator::CreateOr(A, B);
   }
 
-  Value *A = nullptr, *B = nullptr;
-  // (A & ~B) ^ (~A) -> ~(A & B)
-  if (match(Op0, m_And(m_Value(A), m_Not(m_Value(B)))) &&
+  // (A & ~B) ^ ~A -> ~(A & B)
+  // (~B & A) ^ ~A -> ~(A & B)
+  Value *A, *B;
+  if (match(Op0, m_c_And(m_Value(A), m_Not(m_Value(B)))) &&
       match(Op1, m_Not(m_Specific(A))))
     return BinaryOperator::CreateNot(Builder->CreateAnd(A, B));