Check if all possible values for a pair of knownbits give the same icmp result - these are based off the checks performed in InstCombineCompares.cpp and D86578.
Add exhaustive unit test coverage - a followup will update InstCombineCompares.cpp to use this.
ValueTracking was using a more powerful abs() implementation. Roll
it into KnownBits::abs(). Also add an exhaustive test for abs(),
in both the poisoning and non-poisoning variants.
We have a frequent pattern where we're merging two KnownBits to get the common/shared bits, and I just fell for the gotcha where I tried to use the & operator to merge them........
Avoid an expensive isKnownNonZero() call - this is a small cleanup before moving the extra NSW functionality from computeKnownBitsMul into KnownBits::computeForMul.
As discussed on D90527, we should be trying to move shift handling functionality into KnownBits to avoid code duplication in SelectionDAG/GlobalISel/ValueTracking.
As discussed on D90527, we should be be trying to move shift handling functionality into KnownBits to avoid code duplication in SelectionDAG/GlobalISel/ValueTracking.
The refactor to use the KnownBits fixed/min/max constant helpers allows us to hit a couple of cases that we were missing before.
We still need the getValidMinimumShiftAmountConstant case as KnownBits doesn't handle per-element vector cases.
As discussed on D90527, we should be be trying to move shift handling functionality into KnownBits to avoid code duplication in SelectionDAG/GlobalISel/ValueTracking.
The refactor to use the KnownBits fixed/min/max constant helpers allows us to hit a couple of cases that we were missing before.
We still need the getValidMinimumShiftAmountConstant case as KnownBits doesn't handle per-element vector cases.
We already offer zextOrTrunc and it seems natural to offer the
same capability for sign extension.
This patch is a preparatory addition useful for future computeKnownBits
developments.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D88937
This patch refactors the logic in ValueTracking.cpp so that
computeKnownBitsForMul now uses a helper function from KnownBits.
NFC
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D88935
Summary:
There are at least three clients for KnownBits calculations:
ValueTracking, SelectionDAG and GlobalISel. To reduce duplication the
common logic should be moved out of these clients and into KnownBits
itself.
This patch does this for AND, OR and XOR calculations by implementing
and using appropriate operator overloads KnownBits::operator& etc.
Subscribers: hiraditya, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D74060
Summary:
This was a very odd API, where you had to pass a flag into a zext
function to say whether the extended bits really were zero or not. All
callers passed in a literal true or false.
I think it's much clearer to make the function name reflect the
operation being performed on the value we're tracking (rather than on
the KnownBits Zero and One fields), so zext means the value is being
zero extended and new function anyext means the value is being extended
with unknown bits.
NFC.
Subscribers: hiraditya, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D74482
Summary:
At present, the code calculating known bits of AMDGPU MUL_I24 confuses the concepts of "non-negative number" and "positive number".
In some situations, it results in incorrect code. I have a case where the optimizer replaces the result of calculating MUL_I24(-5, 0) with -8.
Reviewers: foad, arsenm
Reviewed By: arsenm
Subscribers: foad, arsenm, kzhuravl, jvesely, wdng, nhaehnle, yaxunl, dstuttard, tpr, t-tye, hiraditya, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Patch by Eugene Kuznetsov.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D70367
As it can be seen from accompanying cleanup, it is not unheard of
to write `~Known.Zero` meaning "what maximal value can this KnownBits
produce". But i think `~Known.Zero` isn't *that* self-explanatory,
as compared to a method with a name.
Note that not all `~Known.Zero` places were cleaned up,
only those where this arguably improves things.
This is for D60460. computeForAddSub() essentially already supports
carries because it has to deal with subtractions. This revision
extracts a lower-level computeForAddCarry() function, which allows
computing the known bits for add (carry known zero), sub (carry known
one) and addcarry (carry unknown).
As we don't seem to have any yet, I've added a unit test file for
KnownBits and exhaustive tests for the new computeForAddCarry()
functionality, as well the existing computeForAddSub() function.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D60522
llvm-svn: 358297
Summary:
The description of KnownBits::zext() and
KnownBits::zextOrTrunc() has confusingly been telling
that the operation is equivalent to zero extending the
value we're tracking. That has not been true, instead
the user has been forced to explicitly set the extended
bits as known zero afterwards.
This patch adds a second argument to KnownBits::zext()
and KnownBits::zextOrTrunc() to control if the extended
bits should be considered as known zero or as unknown.
Reviewers: craig.topper, RKSimon
Reviewed By: RKSimon
Subscribers: javed.absar, hiraditya, jdoerfert, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D58650
llvm-svn: 355099
to reflect the new license.
We understand that people may be surprised that we're moving the header
entirely to discuss the new license. We checked this carefully with the
Foundation's lawyer and we believe this is the correct approach.
Essentially, all code in the project is now made available by the LLVM
project under our new license, so you will see that the license headers
include that license only. Some of our contributors have contributed
code under our old license, and accordingly, we have retained a copy of
our old license notice in the top-level files in each project and
repository.
llvm-svn: 351636
Many of the callers don't guarantee there is no conflict before calling these and instead check for conflicts later.
The makeNegative/makeNonNegative methods replaced Known.One.setSignBit() and Known.Zero.setSignBit() calls that didn't have asserts originally. So removing the asserts is no worse than the original code.
Fixes PR35769
llvm-svn: 321539
I want to reuse this code in SimplifyDemandedBits handling of Add/Sub. This will make that easier.
Wonder if we should use it in SelectionDAG's computeKnownBits too.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D36433
llvm-svn: 310378
This patch adds min/max population count, leading/trailing zero/one bit counting methods.
The min methods return answers based on bits that are known without considering unknown bits. The max methods give answers taking into account the largest count that unknown bits could give.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D32931
llvm-svn: 302925
This adds routines for reseting KnownBits to unknown, making the value all zeros or all ones. It also adds methods for querying if the value is zero, all ones or unknown.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D32637
llvm-svn: 302262
This patch adds isConstant and getConstant for determining if KnownBits represents a constant value and to retrieve the value. Use them to simplify code.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D32785
llvm-svn: 302091
This patch adds zext, sext, and trunc methods to KnownBits and uses them where possible.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D32784
llvm-svn: 302088
Summary: This patch adds isNegative, isNonNegative for querying whether the sign bit is known. It also adds makeNegative and makeNonNegative for controlling the sign bit.
Reviewers: RKSimon, spatel, davide
Reviewed By: RKSimon
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D32651
llvm-svn: 301747
This patch introduces a new KnownBits struct that wraps the two APInt used by computeKnownBits. This allows us to treat them as more of a unit.
Initially I've just altered the signatures of computeKnownBits and InstCombine's simplifyDemandedBits to pass a KnownBits reference instead of two separate APInt references. I'll do similar to the SelectionDAG version of computeKnownBits/simplifyDemandedBits as a separate patch.
I've added a constructor that allows initializing both APInts to the same bit width with a starting value of 0. This reduces the repeated pattern of initializing both APInts. Once place default constructed the APInts so I added a default constructor for those cases.
Going forward I would like to add more methods that will work on the pairs. For example trunc, zext, and sext occur on both APInts together in several places. We should probably add a clear method that can be used to clear both pieces. Maybe a method to check for conflicting information. A method to return (Zero|One) so we don't write it out everywhere. Maybe a method for (Zero|One).isAllOnesValue() to determine if all bits are known. I'm sure there are many other methods we can come up with.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D32376
llvm-svn: 301432
