| Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Age | Files | Lines |
|---|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
fcmp+select
As noted by the FIXME comment, this is not correct based on our current FMF semantics.
We should be propagating FMF from the final value in a sequence (in this case the
'select'). So the behavior even without this patch is wrong, but we did not allow FMF
on 'select' until recently.
But if we do the correct thing right now in this patch, we'll inevitably introduce
regressions because we have not wired up FMF propagation for 'phi' and 'select' in
other passes (like SimplifyCFG) or other places in InstCombine. I'm not seeing a
better incremental way to make progress.
That said, the potential extra damage over the existing wrong behavior from this
patch is very limited. AFAIK, the only way to have different FMF on IR in the same
function is if we have LTO inlined IR from 2 modules that were compiled using
different fast-math settings.
As seen in the tests, we may actually see some improvements with this patch because
adding the FMF to the 'select' allows matching to min/max intrinsics that were
previously missed (in the common case, the 'fcmp' and 'select' should have identical
FMF to begin with).
Next steps in the transition:
Make similar changes in instcombine as needed.
Enable phi-to-select FMF propagation in SimplifyCFG.
Remove dependencies on fcmp with FMF.
Deprecate FMF on fcmp.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D69720
|
| |
|
|
| |
Avoid subsequent test noise from improved CHECK-LABEL matching.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
This is the opposite direction of D62158 (we have to choose 1 form or the other).
Now that we have FMF on the select, this becomes more palatable. And the benefits
of having a single IR instruction for this operation (less chances of missing folds
based on extra uses, etc) overcome my previous comments about the potential advantage
of larger pattern matching/analysis.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D62414
llvm-svn: 364721
|
| |
|
|
| |
llvm-svn: 363163
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Fundamentally/generally, we should not have to rely on bailouts/crippling of
folds. In this particular case, I think we always recognize the inverted
predicate min/max pattern, so there should not be any loss of optimization.
Codegen looks better because we are eliminating an fneg.
llvm-svn: 360180
|
| |
|
|
| |
llvm-svn: 360170
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
The reversion apparently deleted the test/Transforms directory.
Will be re-reverting again.
llvm-svn: 358552
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
As it's causing some bot failures (and per request from kbarton).
This reverts commit r358543/ab70da07286e618016e78247e4a24fcb84077fda.
llvm-svn: 358546
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
As stated in IEEE-754 and discussed in:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=38086
...the sign of zero does not affect any FP compare predicate.
Known regressions were fixed with:
rL346097 (D54001)
rL346143
The transform will help reduce pattern-matching complexity to solve:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=39475
...as well as improve CSE and codegen (a zero constant is almost always
easier to produce than 0x80..00).
llvm-svn: 346147
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
In PR39475:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=39475
..we may fail to recognize/simplify fabs() in some cases because we do not
canonicalize fcmp with a -0.0 operand.
Adding that canonicalization can cause regressions on min/max FP tests, so
that's this patch: for the purpose of determining whether something is min/max,
let the value returned by the select determine how we treat a 0.0 operand in the fcmp.
This patch doesn't actually change the -0.0 to +0.0. It just changes the analysis, so
we don't fail to recognize equivalent min/max patterns that only differ in the
signbit of 0.0.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D54001
llvm-svn: 346097
|
| |
|
|
| |
llvm-svn: 345771
|
| |
|
|
| |
llvm-svn: 345757
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
fmin/fmax pattern
This is a preliminary step for the patch discussed in D41136 (and denoted here with the FIXME comment).
When we match an FP min/max that is cast to integer, any intermediate difference between +0.0 or -0.0
should be muted in the result by the conversion (either fptosi or fptoui) of the result. Thus, we can
enable 'nsz' for the purpose of matching fmin/fmax.
Note that there's probably room to generalize this more, possibly by fixing the current calls to the
weak version of isKnownNonZero() in matchSelectPattern() to the more powerful recursive version.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D41333
llvm-svn: 321456
|
| |
|
|
| |
llvm-svn: 285045
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
matchSelectPattern attempts to see through casts which mask min/max
patterns from being more obvious. Under certain circumstances, it would
misidentify a sequence of instructions as a min/max because it assumed
that folding casts would preserve the result. This is not the case for
floating point <-> integer casts.
This fixes PR27575.
llvm-svn: 268086
|
|
|
The select pattern recognition in ValueTracking (as used by InstCombine
and SelectionDAGBuilder) only knew about integer patterns. This teaches
it about minimum and maximum operations.
matchSelectPattern() has been extended to return a struct containing the
existing Flavor and a new enum defining the pattern's behavior when
given one NaN operand.
C minnum() is defined to return the non-NaN operand in this case, but
the idiomatic C "a < b ? a : b" would return the NaN operand.
ARM and AArch64 at least have different instructions for these different cases.
llvm-svn: 244580
|
