We can simplify (and (icmp X, C1), (icmp X, C2)) to one of the icmps in many cases.
I had to check some of these with Alive to prove to myself it's right, but everything
seems to check out. Eg, the code in instcombine was completely ignoring predicates with
mismatched signedness.
Handling or-of-icmps would be a follow-up step.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D32143
llvm-svn: 301260
Summary:
Ensure that the new merge BB (which contains the rest of the original BB
after the mem op being optimized) gets a profile frequency, in case
there are additional mem ops later in the BB. Otherwise they get skipped
as the merge BB looks cold.
Reviewers: davidxl, xur
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D32447
llvm-svn: 301244
This reverts commit r300732. This breaks a few tests.
I think the problem is related to adding more uses of
the condition that don't yet exist at this point.
llvm-svn: 301242
The current Loop Unroll implementation works with loops having a
single latch that contains a conditional branch to a block outside
the loop (the other successor is, by defition of latch, the header).
If this precondition doesn't hold, avoid unrolling the loop as
the code is not ready to handle such circumstances.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D32261
llvm-svn: 301239
This is a straight cut and paste, but there's a bigger problem: if this
fold exists for simplifyOr, there should be a DeMorganized version for
simplifyAnd. But more than that, we have a patchwork of ad hoc logic
optimizations in InstCombine. There should be some structure to ensure
that we're not missing sibling folds across and/or/xor.
llvm-svn: 301213
When the location description of a source variable involves arithmetic
on the value itself, it needs to be marked with DW_OP_stack_value since it
is not describing the variable's location, but rather its value.
This is a follow-up to r297971 and fixes the source testcase quoted in
the comment in debuginfo-dce.ll.
rdar://problem/30725338
This reapplies r301093 without modifications.
llvm-svn: 301210
There is logic to track the expected number of instructions
produced. It thought in this case an instruction would
be necessary to negate the result, but here it folded
into a ConstantExpr fneg when the non-undef value operand
was cancelled out by the second fsub.
I'm not sure why we don't fold constant FP ops with undef currently,
but I think that would also avoid this problem.
llvm-svn: 301199
Summary:
Instead of keeping a variable indicating whether there are early exits
in the loop. We keep all the early exits. This improves LICM's ability to
move instructions out of the loop based on is-guaranteed-to-execute.
I am going to update compilation time as well soon.
Reviewers: hfinkel, sanjoy, efriedma, mkuper
Reviewed By: hfinkel
Subscribers: llvm-commits, mzolotukhin
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D32433
llvm-svn: 301196
Summary:
The return value of these intrinsics should always have 0 bits for
inactive threads. This means that when all arguments are constant
and the comparison evaluates to true, the intrinsic should return
the current exec mask.
Fixes some GL_ARB_shader_ballot tests.
Reviewers: arsenm
Subscribers: kzhuravl, wdng, yaxunl, dstuttard, tpr, llvm-commits, t-tye
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D32344
llvm-svn: 301195
We handled all of the commuted variants for plain xor already,
although they were scattered around and sometimes folded less
efficiently using distributive laws. We had no folds for not-xor.
Handling all of these patterns consistently is part of trying to
reinstate:
https://reviews.llvm.org/rL300977
llvm-svn: 301144
Summary:
In case all predecessor go to a single successor of current BB. We want to fold (not thread).
I failed to update the phi nodes properly in the last patch https://reviews.llvm.org/rL300657.
Phi nodes values are per predecessor in LLVM.
Reviewers: sanjoy
Reviewed By: sanjoy
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D32400
llvm-svn: 301139
There's probably some better way to write this that eliminates the
code duplication without hurting readability, but at least this
eliminates the logic holes and is hopefully slightly more efficient
than creating new instructions.
llvm-svn: 301129
This reverts commit r301105, 4, 3 and 1, as a follow up of the previous
revert, which broke even more bots.
For reference:
Revert "[APInt] Use operator<<= where possible. NFC"
Revert "[APInt] Use operator<<= instead of shl where possible. NFC"
Revert "[APInt] Use ashInPlace where possible."
PR32754.
llvm-svn: 301111
... in the per-TU -O0 pipeline.
The problem is that there could be passes registered using
`addExtensionsToPM()` introducing unnamed globals.
Asan is an example, but there may be others. Building cppcheck
with `-flto=thin` and `-fsanitize=address` triggers an assertion
while we're reading bitcode (in lib/LTO), as the BitcodeReader
assumes there are no unnamed globals (because the namer has run).
Unfortunately I wasn't able to find an easy way to test this.
I added a comment in the hope nobody moves this again.
llvm-svn: 301102
When the location description of a source variable involves arithmetic
on the value itself, it needs to be marked with DW_OP_stack_value since it
is not describing the variable's location, but rather its value.
This is a follow-up to r297971 and fixes the source testcase quoted in
the comment in debuginfo-dce.ll.
rdar://problem/30725338
llvm-svn: 301093
The later uses of dyn_castNotVal in this block are either
incomplete (doesn't handle vector constants) or overstepping
(shouldn't handle constants at all), but this first use is
just unnecessary. 'I' is obviously not a constant, and it
can't be a not-of-a-not because that would already be
instsimplified.
llvm-svn: 301088
The bug was introduced by r301018 "[InstCombine] fadd double (sitofp x), y check that the promotion is valid". The patch didn't expect that fadd can be on vectors not necessarily scalars. Add vector support along with the test.
llvm-svn: 301070
Fixes leaving intermediate flat addressing computations
where a GEP instruction's source is a constant expression.
Still leaves behind a trivial addrspacecast + gep pair that
instcombine is able to handle, which ideally could be folded
here directly.
llvm-svn: 301044
Doing these transformations check that the result of integer addition is representable in the FP type.
(fadd double (sitofp x), fpcst) --> (sitofp (add int x, intcst))
(fadd double (sitofp x), (sitofp y)) --> (sitofp (add int x, y))
This is a fix for https://bugs.llvm.org//show_bug.cgi?id=27036
Reviewed By: andrew.w.kaylor, scanon, spatel
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D31182
llvm-svn: 301018
Currently we choose PostBB as the single successor of QFB, but its possible that QTB's single successor is QFB which would make QFB the correct choice.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D32323
llvm-svn: 300992
places based on it.
Existing constant hoisting pass will merge a group of contants in a small range
and hoist the const materialization code to the common dominator of their uses.
However, if the uses are all in cold pathes, existing implementation may hoist
the materialization code from cold pathes to a hot place. This may hurt performance.
The patch introduces BFI to the pass and selects the best insertion places based
on it.
The change is controlled by an option consthoist-with-block-frequency which is
off by default for now.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D28962
llvm-svn: 300989
Phi nodes in non-header blocks are converted to select instructions after
if-conversion. This patch updates the cost model to account for the selects.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D31906
llvm-svn: 300980
CodeExtractor looks up the dominator node corresponding to return blocks
when splitting them. If one of these blocks is unreachable, there's no
node in the Dom and CodeExtractor crashes because it doesn't check
for domtree node validity.
In theory, we could add just a check for skipping null DTNodes in
`splitReturnBlock` but the fix I propose here is slightly different. To the
best of my knowledge, unreachable blocks are irrelevant for the algorithm,
therefore we can just skip them when building the candidate set in the
constructor.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D32335
llvm-svn: 300946
The demanded mask and the constant should always be the same width for all callers today.
Also stop copying the demanded mask as its passed in. We should avoid allocating memory unless we are going to do something. The final AND to create the new constant will take care of it.
llvm-svn: 300927
