Original commit message:
Defer some shl transforms to DAGCombine.
The shl instruction is used to represent multiplication by a constant
power of two as well as bitwise left shifts. Some InstCombine
transformations would turn an shl instruction into a bit mask operation,
making it difficult for later analysis passes to recognize the
constsnt multiplication.
Disable those shl transformations, deferring them to DAGCombine time.
An 'shl X, C' instruction is now treated mostly the same was as 'mul X, C'.
These transformations are deferred:
(X >>? C) << C --> X & (-1 << C) (When X >> C has multiple uses)
(X >>? C1) << C2 --> X << (C2-C1) & (-1 << C2) (When C2 > C1)
(X >>? C1) << C2 --> X >>? (C1-C2) & (-1 << C2) (When C1 > C2)
The corresponding exact transformations are preserved, just like
div-exact + mul:
(X >>?,exact C) << C --> X
(X >>?,exact C1) << C2 --> X << (C2-C1)
(X >>?,exact C1) << C2 --> X >>?,exact (C1-C2)
The disabled transformations could also prevent the instruction selector
from recognizing rotate patterns in hash functions and cryptographic
primitives. I have a test case for that, but it is too fragile.
llvm-svn: 155362
While the patch was perfect and defect free, it exposed a really nasty
bug in X86 SelectionDAG that caused an llc crash when compiling lencod.
I'll put the patch back in after fixing the SelectionDAG problem.
llvm-svn: 155181
The shl instruction is used to represent multiplication by a constant
power of two as well as bitwise left shifts. Some InstCombine
transformations would turn an shl instruction into a bit mask operation,
making it difficult for later analysis passes to recognize the
constsnt multiplication.
Disable those shl transformations, deferring them to DAGCombine time.
An 'shl X, C' instruction is now treated mostly the same was as 'mul X, C'.
These transformations are deferred:
(X >>? C) << C --> X & (-1 << C) (When X >> C has multiple uses)
(X >>? C1) << C2 --> X << (C2-C1) & (-1 << C2) (When C2 > C1)
(X >>? C1) << C2 --> X >>? (C1-C2) & (-1 << C2) (When C1 > C2)
The corresponding exact transformations are preserved, just like
div-exact + mul:
(X >>?,exact C) << C --> X
(X >>?,exact C1) << C2 --> X << (C2-C1)
(X >>?,exact C1) << C2 --> X >>?,exact (C1-C2)
The disabled transformations could also prevent the instruction selector
from recognizing rotate patterns in hash functions and cryptographic
primitives. I have a test case for that, but it is too fragile.
llvm-svn: 155136
GEPs, bit casts, and stores reaching it but no other instructions. These
often show up during the iterative processing of the inliner, SROA, and
DCE. Once we hit this point, we can completely remove the alloca. These
were actually showing up in the final, fully optimized code in a bunch
of inliner tests I've been working on, and notably they show up after
LLVM finishes optimizing away all function calls involved in
hash_combine(a, b).
llvm-svn: 154285
This allows us to keep passing reduced masks to SimplifyDemandedBits, but
know about all the bits if SimplifyDemandedBits fails. This allows instcombine
to simplify cases like the one in the included testcase.
llvm-svn: 154011
alignment. If that's the case, then we want to make sure that we don't increase
the alignment of the store instruction. Because if we increase it to be "more
aligned" than the pointer, code-gen may use instructions which require a greater
alignment than the pointer guarantees.
<rdar://problem/11043589>
llvm-svn: 152907
The 'CmpInst::isFalseWhenEqual' function returns 'false' for values other than
simply equality. For instance, it returns 'false' for <= or >=. This isn't the
correct behavior for this transformation, which is checking for strict equality
and non-equality. It was causing the gcc.c-torture/execute/frame-address.c test
to fail because it would completely (and incorrectly) optimize a whole function
into a 'ret i32 0'.
llvm-svn: 152497
This transformation is not safe in some pathological cases (signed icmp of pointers should be an
extremely rare thing, but it's valid IR!). Add an explanatory comment.
Kudos to Duncan for pointing out this edge case (and not giving up explaining it until I finally got it).
llvm-svn: 151055
- Ignore pointer casts.
- Also expand GEPs that aren't constantexprs when they have one use or only constant indices.
- We now compile "&foo[i] - &foo[j]" into "i - j".
llvm-svn: 150961
Changing arguments from being passed as fixed to varargs is unsafe, as
the ABI may require they be handled differently (stack vs. register, for
example).
Remove two tests which rely on the bitcast being folded into the direct
call, which is exactly the transformation that's unsafe.
llvm-svn: 149457
This has the obvious advantage of being commutable and is always a win on x86 because
const - x wastes a register there. On less weird architectures this may lead to
a regression because other arithmetic doesn't fuse with it anymore. I'll address that
problem in a followup.
llvm-svn: 147254
I followed three heuristics for deciding whether to set 'true' or
'false':
- Everything target independent got 'true' as that is the expected
common output of the GCC builtins.
- If the target arch only has one way of implementing this operation,
set the flag in the way that exercises the most of codegen. For most
architectures this is also the likely path from a GCC builtin, with
'true' being set. It will (eventually) require lowering away that
difference, and then lowering to the architecture's operation.
- Otherwise, set the flag differently dependending on which target
operation should be tested.
Let me know if anyone has any issue with this pattern or would like
specific tests of another form. This should allow the x86 codegen to
just iteratively improve as I teach the backend how to differentiate
between the two forms, and everything else should remain exactly the
same.
llvm-svn: 146370
