| Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Age | Files | Lines |
... | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
SimplifyDemandedUseBits without recursing into ComputeKnownBits
SimplifyDemandedUseBits for Add/Sub already recursed down LHS and RHS for simplifying bits. If that didn't provide any simplifications we fall back to calling computeKnownBits which will recurse again. Instead just take the known bits for LHS and RHS we already have and call into a new function in ValueTracking that can calculate the known bits given the LHS/RHS bits.
llvm-svn: 298711
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
of a creating a temporary APInt. NFC
llvm-svn: 298688
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
setHighBits/setLowBits/setSignBit. NFCI
llvm-svn: 298683
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
NFCI
llvm-svn: 298584
|
|
|
|
| |
llvm-svn: 298583
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
calculating known bits for calls to bitreverse intrinsic.
llvm-svn: 298488
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
getHighBits/getLowBits. NFCI
llvm-svn: 298486
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
The code assigned to KnownZero, but later code unconditionally assigned over it. I'm pretty sure the later code can handle the same cases and more equally well.
llvm-svn: 298190
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
getSignBit which will malloc if the bit width is larger than 64.
llvm-svn: 298180
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
If it is possible for the RHS of a shift operation to be greater than or equal
to the bit-width, then the result might be undef, and we can't report any known
bits.
In some cases, this was allowing a transformation in instcombine which widened
an undef value from i1 to i32, increasing the range of values that a function
could return.
Differential revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D30781
llvm-svn: 297724
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
A block with an UnreachableInst does not transfer execution to a successor.
The problem was exposed by GVN-hoist. This patch fixes bug 32153.
Patch by Aditya Kumar.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D30667
llvm-svn: 297254
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Summary:
Previously we used to return a bogus result, 0, for IR like `ashr %val,
-1`.
I've also added an assert checking that `ComputeNumSignBits` at least
returns 1. That assert found an already checked in test case where we
were returning a bad result for `ashr %val, -1`.
Fixes PR32045.
Reviewers: spatel, majnemer
Reviewed By: spatel, majnemer
Subscribers: efriedma, mcrosier, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D30311
llvm-svn: 296273
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Summary:
Motivation: fix PR31181 without regression (the actual fix is still in
progress). However, the actual content of PR31181 is not relevant
here.
This change makes poison propagation more aggressive in the following
cases:
1. poision * Val == poison, for any Val. In particular, this changes
existing intentional and documented behavior in these two cases:
a. Val is 0
b. Val is 2^k * N
2. poison << Val == poison, for any Val
3. getelementptr is poison if any input is poison
I think all of these are justified (and are axiomatically true in the
new poison / undef model):
1a: we need poison * 0 to be poison to allow transforms like these:
A * (B + C) ==> A * B + A * C
If poison * 0 were 0 then the above transform could not be allowed
since e.g. we could have A = poison, B = 1, C = -1, making the LHS
poison * (1 + -1) = poison * 0 = 0
and the RHS
poison * 1 + poison * -1 = poison + poison = poison
1b: we need e.g. poison * 4 to be poison since we want to allow
A * 4 ==> A + A + A + A
If poison * 4 were a value with all of their bits poison except the
last four; then we'd not be able to do this transform since then if A
were poison the LHS would only be "partially" poison while the RHS
would be "full" poison.
2: Same reasoning as (1b), we'd like have the following kinds
transforms be legal:
A << 1 ==> A + A
Reviewers: majnemer, efriedma
Subscribers: mcrosier, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D30185
llvm-svn: 295809
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
(Whitespace only change)
llvm-svn: 295690
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Enhancing value tracking's analysis of null-ness was suggested in D27855, so here's a first attempt at that.
This is part of solving:
https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=28430
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D28204
llvm-svn: 294897
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
This is a follow-up to D29395 where we try to be good citizens and let the user know that
we've probably gone off the rails.
This should allow us to resolve:
https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=31809
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D29404
llvm-svn: 294208
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
The comment was added with:
https://reviews.llvm.org/rL293773
...but there would be a cost to implement this and possibly no payoff.
llvm-svn: 293823
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
A program may contain llvm.assume info that disagrees with other analysis.
This may be caused by UB in the program, so we must not crash because of that.
As noted in the code comments:
https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=31809
...we can do better, but this at least avoids the assert/crash in the bug report.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D29395
llvm-svn: 293773
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
1. Use auto with dyn_cast.
2. Don't use else after return.
3. Convert chain of 'else if' to switch.
4. Improve variable names.
llvm-svn: 293432
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
thing for powi.
Summary:
CannotBeOrderedLessThanZero(powi(x, exp)) returns true if
CannotBeOrderedLessThanZero(x). But powi(-0, exp) is negative if exp is
odd, so we actually want to return SignBitMustBeZero(x).
Except that also isn't right, because we want to return true if x is
NaN, even if x has a negative sign bit.
What we really need in order to fix this is a consistent approach in
this function to handling the sign bit of NaNs. Without this it's very
difficult to say what the correct behavior here is.
Reviewers: hfinkel, efriedma, sanjoy
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D28927
llvm-svn: 293243
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Summary:
Previously we assumed that the result of sqrt(x) always had 0 as its
sign bit. But sqrt(-0) == -0.
Reviewers: hfinkel, efriedma, sanjoy
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D28928
llvm-svn: 293115
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Floating point intrinsics in LLVM are generally not speculatively
executed, since most of them are defined to behave the same as libm
functions, which set errno.
However, the @llvm.powi.* intrinsics do not correspond to any libm
function, and lacks any defined error handling semantics in LangRef.
It most certainly does not alter errno.
llvm-svn: 293041
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Summary:
The LibFunc::Func enum holds enumerators named for libc functions.
Unfortunately, there are real situations, including libc implementations, where
function names are actually macros (musl uses "#define fopen64 fopen", for
example; any other transitively visible macro would have similar effects).
Strictly speaking, a conforming C++ Standard Library should provide any such
macros as functions instead (via <cstdio>). However, there are some "library"
functions which are not part of the standard, and thus not subject to this
rule (fopen64, for example). So, in order to be both portable and consistent,
the enum should not use the bare function names.
The old enum naming used a namespace LibFunc and an enum Func, with bare
enumerators. This patch changes LibFunc to be an enum with enumerators prefixed
with "LibFFunc_". (Unfortunately, a scoped enum is not sufficient to override
macros.)
There are additional changes required in clang.
Reviewers: rsmith
Subscribers: mehdi_amini, mzolotukhin, nemanjai, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D28476
llvm-svn: 292848
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
This is similar to what the caller (matchSelectPattern()) does. In all
cases where we succeed in matching a min/max pattern, the values in
that pattern will be the values of the 'select', so hoist that and
remove a bunch of duplicated code.
llvm-svn: 292725
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
By enhancing value tracking, we allow an existing min/max canonicalization to
kick in and improve codegen for several targets that have min/max instructions.
Unfortunately, recognizing min/max in value tracking may cause us to hit
a hack in InstCombiner::visitICmpInst() more often:
http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2017-January/109340.html
...but I'm hoping we can remove that soon.
Correctness proofs based on Alive:
Name: smaxmin
Pre: C1 < C2
%cmp2 = icmp slt i8 %x, C2
%min = select i1 %cmp2, i8 %x, i8 C2
%cmp3 = icmp slt i8 %x, C1
%r = select i1 %cmp3, i8 C1, i8 %min
=>
%cmp2 = icmp slt i8 %x, C2
%min = select i1 %cmp2, i8 %x, i8 C2
%cmp1 = icmp sgt i8 %min, C1
%r = select i1 %cmp1, i8 %min, i8 C1
Name: sminmax
Pre: C1 > C2
%cmp2 = icmp sgt i8 %x, C2
%max = select i1 %cmp2, i8 %x, i8 C2
%cmp3 = icmp sgt i8 %x, C1
%r = select i1 %cmp3, i8 C1, i8 %max
=>
%cmp2 = icmp sgt i8 %x, C2
%max = select i1 %cmp2, i8 %x, i8 C2
%cmp1 = icmp slt i8 %max, C1
%r = select i1 %cmp1, i8 %max, i8 C1
----------------------------------------
Optimization: smaxmin
Done: 1
Optimization is correct!
----------------------------------------
Optimization: sminmax
Done: 1
Optimization is correct!
Name: umaxmin
Pre: C1 u< C2
%cmp2 = icmp ult i8 %x, C2
%min = select i1 %cmp2, i8 %x, i8 C2
%cmp3 = icmp ult i8 %x, C1
%r = select i1 %cmp3, i8 C1, i8 %min
=>
%cmp2 = icmp ult i8 %x, C2
%min = select i1 %cmp2, i8 %x, i8 C2
%cmp1 = icmp ugt i8 %min, C1
%r = select i1 %cmp1, i8 %min, i8 C1
Name: uminmax
Pre: C1 u> C2
%cmp2 = icmp ugt i8 %x, C2
%max = select i1 %cmp2, i8 %x, i8 C2
%cmp3 = icmp ugt i8 %x, C1
%r = select i1 %cmp3, i8 C1, i8 %max
=>
%cmp2 = icmp ugt i8 %x, C2
%max = select i1 %cmp2, i8 %x, i8 C2
%cmp1 = icmp ult i8 %max, C1
%r = select i1 %cmp1, i8 %max, i8 C1
----------------------------------------
Optimization: umaxmin
Done: 1
Optimization is correct!
----------------------------------------
Optimization: uminmax
Done: 1
Optimization is correct!
llvm-svn: 292660
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Also, add the corresponding match to the AssumptionCache's 'Affected Values' list.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D28485
llvm-svn: 292239
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D28780
llvm-svn: 292233
|
|
|
|
| |
llvm-svn: 291916
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
assumption cache
Here's my second try at making @llvm.assume processing more efficient. My
previous attempt, which leveraged operand bundles, r289755, didn't end up
working: it did make assume processing more efficient but eliminating the
assumption cache made ephemeral value computation too expensive. This is a
more-targeted change. We'll keep the assumption cache, but extend it to keep a
map of affected values (i.e. values about which an assumption might provide
some information) to the corresponding assumption intrinsics. This allows
ValueTracking and LVI to find assumptions relevant to the value being queried
without scanning all assumptions in the function. The fact that ValueTracking
started doing O(number of assumptions in the function) work, for every
known-bits query, has become prohibitively expensive in some cases.
As discussed during the review, this is a pragmatic fix that, longer term, will
likely be replaced by a more-principled solution (perhaps based on an extended
SSA form).
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D28459
llvm-svn: 291671
|
|
|
|
| |
llvm-svn: 291624
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Summary: Intrinsic::Bitreverse is safe to speculate
Reviewers: hfinkel, mkuper, arsenm, jmolloy
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D28471
llvm-svn: 291456
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
The checks were improved with:
https://reviews.llvm.org/rL290194
llvm-svn: 290826
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
I'm not sure if this was intentional, but today
isGuaranteedToTransferExecutionToSuccessor returns true for readonly and
argmemonly calls that may throw. This commit changes the function to
not implicitly infer nounwind this way.
Even if we eventually specify readonly calls as not throwing,
isGuaranteedToTransferExecutionToSuccessor is not the best place to
infer that. We should instead teach FunctionAttrs or some other such
pass to tag readonly functions / calls as nounwind instead.
llvm-svn: 290794
|
|
|
|
| |
llvm-svn: 290793
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
isKnownNonNullFromDominatingCondition(); NFCI
I don't think this hole is currently exposed, but I crashed regression tests for
jump-threading and loop-vectorize after I added calls to isKnownNonNullAt() in
InstSimplify as part of trying to solve PR28430:
https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=28430
That's because they call into value tracking with a context instruction, but no
other parts of the query structure filled in.
For more background, see the discussion in:
https://reviews.llvm.org/D27855
llvm-svn: 290786
|
|
|
|
| |
llvm-svn: 290194
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
This creates non-linear behavior in the inliner (see more details in
r289755's commit thread).
llvm-svn: 290086
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
There was an efficiency problem with how we processed @llvm.assume in
ValueTracking (and other places). The AssumptionCache tracked all of the
assumptions in a given function. In order to find assumptions relevant to
computing known bits, etc. we searched every assumption in the function. For
ValueTracking, that means that we did O(#assumes * #values) work in InstCombine
and other passes (with a constant factor that can be quite large because we'd
repeat this search at every level of recursion of the analysis).
Several of us discussed this situation at the last developers' meeting, and
this implements the discussed solution: Make the values that an assume might
affect operands of the assume itself. To avoid exposing this detail to
frontends and passes that need not worry about it, I've used the new
operand-bundle feature to add these extra call "operands" in a way that does
not affect the intrinsic's signature. I think this solution is relatively
clean. InstCombine adds these extra operands based on what ValueTracking, LVI,
etc. will need and then those passes need only search the users of the values
under consideration. This should fix the computational-complexity problem.
At this point, no passes depend on the AssumptionCache, and so I'll remove
that as a follow-up change.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D27259
llvm-svn: 289755
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Summary:
Attaching !absolute_symbol to a global variable does two things:
1) Marks it as an absolute symbol reference.
2) Specifies the value range of that symbol's address.
Teach the X86 backend to allow absolute symbols to appear in place of
immediates by extending the relocImm and mov64imm32 matchers. Start using
relocImm in more places where it is legal.
As previously proposed on llvm-dev:
http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2016-October/105800.html
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D25878
llvm-svn: 289087
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
type.
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Currently LLVM assumes that a pointer addrspacecasted to a different addr space is equivalent to trunc or zext bitwise, which is not true. For example, in amdgcn target, when a null pointer is addrspacecasted from addr space 4 to 0, its value is changed from i64 0 to i32 -1.
This patch teaches LLVM not to assume known bits of addrspacecast instruction to its operand.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D26803
llvm-svn: 287545
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Similar to:
https://reviews.llvm.org/rL285499
https://reviews.llvm.org/rL286318
We can't minimally expose this in IR tests because we don't have min/max intrinsics,
but the difference is visible in codegen because SelectionDAGBuilder::visitSelect()
uses matchSelectPattern().
We're not canonicalizing these patterns in IR (yet), so I don't expect there to be any
regressions as noted here:
http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2016-November/106868.html
llvm-svn: 286776
|
|
|
|
| |
llvm-svn: 286772
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
The smallest tests that expose this are codegen tests (because SelectionDAGBuilder::visitSelect() uses matchSelectPattern
to create UMAX/UMIN nodes), but it's also possible to see the effects in IR alone with folds of min/max pairs.
If these were written as unsigned compares in IR, InstCombine canonicalizes the unsigned compares to signed compares.
Ie, running the optimizer pessimizes the codegen for this case without this patch:
define <4 x i32> @umax_vec(<4 x i32> %x) {
%cmp = icmp ugt <4 x i32> %x, <i32 2147483647, i32 2147483647, i32 2147483647, i32 2147483647>
%sel = select <4 x i1> %cmp, <4 x i32> %x, <4 x i32> <i32 2147483647, i32 2147483647, i32 2147483647, i32 2147483647>
ret <4 x i32> %sel
}
$ ./opt umax.ll -S | ./llc -o - -mattr=avx
vpmaxud LCPI0_0(%rip), %xmm0, %xmm0
$ ./opt -instcombine umax.ll -S | ./llc -o - -mattr=avx
vpxor %xmm1, %xmm1, %xmm1
vpcmpgtd %xmm0, %xmm1, %xmm1
vmovaps LCPI0_0(%rip), %xmm2 ## xmm2 = [2147483647,2147483647,2147483647,2147483647]
vblendvps %xmm1, %xmm0, %xmm2, %xmm0
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D26096
llvm-svn: 286318
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
InstCombine should always canonicalize patterns like the one shown in the comment
when visiting 'select' insts in adjustMinMax().
Scalars were already handled there, and vector splats are handled after:
https://reviews.llvm.org/rL285732
llvm-svn: 285744
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Try harder to detect obfuscated min/max patterns: the initial pattern was added with D9352 / rL236202.
There was a bug fix for PR27137 at rL264996, but I think we can do better by folding the corresponding
smax pattern and commuted variants.
The codegen tests demonstrate the effect of ValueTracking on the backend via SelectionDAGBuilder. We
can't expose these differences minimally in IR because we don't have smin/smax intrinsics for IR.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D26091
llvm-svn: 285499
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
min/max/abs/nabs
llvm-svn: 285303
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
We're about to start using it there.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D25877
llvm-svn: 284865
|
|
|
|
| |
llvm-svn: 284307
|