[SimplifyCFG] reverting preliminary Switch patches again

This reverts 363226 and 363227, both NFC intended

I swear I fixed the test case that is failing, and ran
the tests, but I will look into it again.

llvm-svn: 363229

1 files changed, 13 insertions, 11 deletions

diff --git a/llvm/lib/Transforms/Utils/SimplifyCFG.cpp b/llvm/lib/Transforms/Utils/SimplifyCFG.cpp
index ec574eaa81d..90b552035af 100644
--- a/llvm/lib/Transforms/Utils/SimplifyCFG.cpp
+++ b/llvm/lib/Transforms/Utils/SimplifyCFG.cpp
@@ -5559,23 +5559,25 @@ static bool ReduceSwitchRange(SwitchInst *SI, IRBuilder<> &Builder,
   // Now we have signed numbers that have been shifted so that, given enough
   // precision, there are no negative values. Since the rest of the transform
   // is bitwise only, we switch now to an unsigned representation.
+  uint64_t GCD = 0;
+  for (auto &V : Values)
+    GCD = GreatestCommonDivisor64(GCD, (uint64_t)V);
 
-  // This transform can be done speculatively because it is so cheap - it
-  // results in a single rotate operation being inserted.
+  // This transform can be done speculatively because it is so cheap - it results
+  // in a single rotate operation being inserted. This can only happen if the
+  // factor extracted is a power of 2.
+  // FIXME: If the GCD is an odd number we can multiply by the multiplicative
+  // inverse of GCD and then perform this transform.
   // FIXME: It's possible that optimizing a switch on powers of two might also
   // be beneficial - flag values are often powers of two and we could use a CLZ
   // as the key function.
+  if (GCD <= 1 || !isPowerOf2_64(GCD))
+    // No common divisor found or too expensive to compute key function.
+    return false;
 
-  // countTrailingZeros(0) returns 64. As Values is guaranteed to have more than
-  // one element and LLVM disallows duplicate cases, Shift is guaranteed to be
-  // less than 64.
-  unsigned Shift = 64;
+  unsigned Shift = Log2_64(GCD);
   for (auto &V : Values)
-    Shift = std::min(Shift, countTrailingZeros((uint64_t)V));
-  assert(Shift < 64);
-  if (Shift > 0)
-    for (auto &V : Values)
-      V = (int64_t)((uint64_t)V >> Shift);
+    V = (int64_t)((uint64_t)V >> Shift);
 
   if (!isSwitchDense(Values))
     // Transform didn't create a dense switch.