| Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Age | Files | Lines |
|---|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
`@llvm.umul.with.overflow` inverted overflow bit
Summary:
Now that with D65143/D65144 we've produce `@llvm.umul.with.overflow`,
and with D65147 we've flattened the CFG, we now can see that
the guard may have been there to prevent division by zero is redundant.
We can simply drop it:
```
----------------------------------------
Name: no overflow or zero
%iszero = icmp eq i4 %y, 0
%umul = smul_overflow i4 %x, %y
%umul.ov = extractvalue {i4, i1} %umul, 1
%umul.ov.not = xor %umul.ov, -1
%retval.0 = or i1 %iszero, %umul.ov.not
ret i1 %retval.0
=>
%iszero = icmp eq i4 %y, 0
%umul = smul_overflow i4 %x, %y
%umul.ov = extractvalue {i4, i1} %umul, 1
%umul.ov.not = xor %umul.ov, -1
%retval.0 = or i1 %iszero, %umul.ov.not
ret i1 %umul.ov.not
Done: 1
Optimization is correct!
```
Note that this is inverted from what we have in a previous patch,
here we are looking for the inverted overflow bit.
And that inversion is kinda problematic - given this particular
pattern we neither hoist that `not` closer to `ret` (then the pattern
would have been identical to the one without inversion,
and would have been handled by the previous patch), neither
do the opposite transform. But regardless, we should handle this too.
I've filled [[ https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=42720 | PR42720 ]].
Reviewers: nikic, spatel, xbolva00, RKSimon
Reviewed By: spatel
Subscribers: hiraditya, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D65151
llvm-svn: 370351
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
`@llvm.umul.with.overflow` overflow bit
Summary:
Now that with D65143/D65144 we've produce `@llvm.umul.with.overflow`,
and with D65147 we've flattened the CFG, we now can see that
the guard may have been there to prevent division by zero is redundant.
We can simply drop it:
```
----------------------------------------
Name: no overflow and not zero
%iszero = icmp ne i4 %y, 0
%umul = umul_overflow i4 %x, %y
%umul.ov = extractvalue {i4, i1} %umul, 1
%retval.0 = and i1 %iszero, %umul.ov
ret i1 %retval.0
=>
%iszero = icmp ne i4 %y, 0
%umul = umul_overflow i4 %x, %y
%umul.ov = extractvalue {i4, i1} %umul, 1
%retval.0 = and i1 %iszero, %umul.ov
ret %umul.ov
Done: 1
Optimization is correct!
```
Reviewers: nikic, spatel, xbolva00
Reviewed By: spatel
Subscribers: hiraditya, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D65150
llvm-svn: 370350
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
hoist a 'not' from incoming values
Summary:
As it can be seen in the tests in D65143/D65144, even though we have formed an '@llvm.umul.with.overflow'
and got rid of potential for division-by-zero, the control flow remains, we still have that branch.
We have this condition:
```
// Don't fold i1 branches on PHIs which contain binary operators
// These can often be turned into switches and other things.
if (PN->getType()->isIntegerTy(1) &&
(isa<BinaryOperator>(PN->getIncomingValue(0)) ||
isa<BinaryOperator>(PN->getIncomingValue(1)) ||
isa<BinaryOperator>(IfCond)))
return false;
```
which was added back in rL121764 to help with `select` formation i think?
That check prevents us to flatten the CFG here, even though we know
we no longer need that guard and will be able to drop everything
but the '@llvm.umul.with.overflow' + `not`.
As it can be seen from tests, we end here because the `not` is being
sinked into the PHI's incoming values by InstCombine,
so we can't workaround this by hoisting it to after PHI.
Thus i suggest that we relax that check to not bailout if we'd get to hoist the `not`.
Reviewers: craig.topper, spatel, fhahn, nikic
Reviewed By: spatel
Subscribers: hiraditya, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D65147
llvm-svn: 370349
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
overflow bit extraction
Summary:
`(-1 u/ %x) u< %y` is one of (3?) common ways to check that
some unsigned multiplication (will not) overflow.
Currently, we don't catch it. We could:
```
----------------------------------------
Name: no overflow
%o0 = udiv i4 -1, %x
%r = icmp ult i4 %o0, %y
=>
%o0 = udiv i4 -1, %x
%n0 = umul_overflow i4 %x, %y
%r = extractvalue {i4, i1} %n0, 1
Done: 1
Optimization is correct!
----------------------------------------
Name: no overflow, swapped
%o0 = udiv i4 -1, %x
%r = icmp ugt i4 %y, %o0
=>
%o0 = udiv i4 -1, %x
%n0 = umul_overflow i4 %x, %y
%r = extractvalue {i4, i1} %n0, 1
Done: 1
Optimization is correct!
----------------------------------------
Name: overflow
%o0 = udiv i4 -1, %x
%r = icmp uge i4 %o0, %y
=>
%o0 = udiv i4 -1, %x
%n0 = umul_overflow i4 %x, %y
%n1 = extractvalue {i4, i1} %n0, 1
%r = xor %n1, -1
Done: 1
Optimization is correct!
----------------------------------------
Name: overflow
%o0 = udiv i4 -1, %x
%r = icmp ule i4 %y, %o0
=>
%o0 = udiv i4 -1, %x
%n0 = umul_overflow i4 %x, %y
%n1 = extractvalue {i4, i1} %n0, 1
%r = xor %n1, -1
Done: 1
Optimization is correct!
```
As it can be observed from tests, while simply forming the `@llvm.umul.with.overflow`
is easy, if we were looking for the inverted answer, then more work needs to be done
to cleanup the now-pointless control-flow that was guarding against division-by-zero.
This is being addressed in follow-up patches.
Reviewers: nikic, spatel, efriedma, xbolva00, RKSimon
Reviewed By: nikic, xbolva00
Subscribers: hiraditya, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D65143
llvm-svn: 370347
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
This way it will be more obvious that the problem is both
in cost threshold and in hardcoded benefit check,
plus will show how the instsimplify cleans this all in the end.
llvm-svn: 366800
|
|
|
overflow check
While we can form the @llvm.mul.with.overflow easily,
we are still left with that check that was guarding against div-by-0.
And in the second case we won't even flatten the CFG.
llvm-svn: 366747
|
