The following implements the transformation:
(sub (or A B) (xor A B)) --> (and A B).
Patch by Ankur Garg!
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D5719
llvm-svn: 220163
This change, which allows @llvm.assume to be used from within computeKnownBits
(and other associated functions in ValueTracking), adds some (optional)
parameters to computeKnownBits and friends. These functions now (optionally)
take a "context" instruction pointer, an AssumptionTracker pointer, and also a
DomTree pointer, and most of the changes are just to pass this new information
when it is easily available from InstSimplify, InstCombine, etc.
As explained below, the significant conceptual change is that known properties
of a value might depend on the control-flow location of the use (because we
care that the @llvm.assume dominates the use because assumptions have
control-flow dependencies). This means that, when we ask if bits are known in a
value, we might get different answers for different uses.
The significant changes are all in ValueTracking. Two main changes: First, as
with the rest of the code, new parameters need to be passed around. To make
this easier, I grouped them into a structure, and I made internal static
versions of the relevant functions that take this structure as a parameter. The
new code does as you might expect, it looks for @llvm.assume calls that make
use of the value we're trying to learn something about (often indirectly),
attempts to pattern match that expression, and uses the result if successful.
By making use of the AssumptionTracker, the process of finding @llvm.assume
calls is not expensive.
Part of the structure being passed around inside ValueTracking is a set of
already-considered @llvm.assume calls. This is to prevent a query using, for
example, the assume(a == b), to recurse on itself. The context and DT params
are used to find applicable assumptions. An assumption needs to dominate the
context instruction, or come after it deterministically. In this latter case we
only handle the specific case where both the assumption and the context
instruction are in the same block, and we need to exclude assumptions from
being used to simplify their own ephemeral values (those which contribute only
to the assumption) because otherwise the assumption would prove its feeding
comparison trivial and would be removed.
This commit adds the plumbing and the logic for a simple masked-bit propagation
(just enough to write a regression test). Future commits add more patterns
(and, correspondingly, more regression tests).
llvm-svn: 217342
We can prove that a 'sub' can be a 'sub nsw' under certain conditions:
- The sign bits of the operands is the same.
- Both operands have more than 1 sign bit.
The subtraction cannot be a signed overflow in either case.
llvm-svn: 216037
While *most* (X sdiv 1) operations will get caught by InstSimplify, it
is still possible for a sdiv to appear in the worklist which hasn't been
simplified yet.
This means that it is possible for 0 - (X sdiv 1) to get transformed
into (X sdiv -1); dividing by -1 can make the transform produce undef
values instead of the proper result.
Sorry for the lack of testcase, it's a bit problematic because it relies
on the exact order of operations in the worklist.
llvm-svn: 215818
What follows bellow is a correctness proof of the transform using CVC3.
$ < t.cvc
A, B : BITVECTOR(32);
QUERY BVPLUS(32, A & B, A | B) = BVPLUS(32, A, B);
$ cvc3 < t.cvc
Valid.
llvm-svn: 215400
We can only propagate the nsw bits if both subtraction instructions are
marked with the appropriate bit.
N.B. We only propagate the nsw bit in InstCombine because the nuw case
is already handled in InstSimplify.
This fixes PR20189.
llvm-svn: 214385
This patch enables transforms for
(x + (~(y | c) + 1) --> x - (y | c) if c is odd
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D4210
llvm-svn: 211881
This patch enables transforms for
(x + (~(y | c) + 1) --> x - (y | c) if c is even
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D4209
llvm-svn: 211765
This patch enables transforms for following patterns.
(x + (~(y & c) + 1) --> x - (y & c)
(x + (~((y >> z) & c) + 1) --> x - ((y>>z) & c)
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D3733
llvm-svn: 211266
* Find factorization opportunities using identity values.
* Find factorization opportunities by treating shl(X, C) as mul (X, shl(C))
* Keep NSW flag while simplifying instruction using factorization.
This fixes PR19263.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D3799
llvm-svn: 211261
Summary:
As a starting step, we only use one simple heuristic: if the sign bits
of both a and b are zero, we can prove "add a, b" do not unsigned
overflow, and thus convert it to "add nuw a, b".
Updated all affected tests and added two new tests (@zero_sign_bit and
@zero_sign_bit2) in AddOverflow.ll
Test Plan: make check-all
Reviewers: eliben, rafael, meheff, chandlerc
Reviewed By: chandlerc
Subscribers: chandlerc, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D4144
llvm-svn: 211084
This patch implements two things:
1. If we know one number is positive and another is negative, we return true as
signed addition of two opposite signed numbers will never overflow.
2. Implemented TODO : If one of the operands only has one non-zero bit, and if
the other operand has a known-zero bit in a more significant place than it
(not including the sign bit) the ripple may go up to and fill the zero, but
won't change the sign. e.x - (x & ~4) + 1
We make sure that we are ignoring 0 at MSB.
Patch by Suyog Sarda.
llvm-svn: 210186
The code was actually correct. Sorry for the confusion. I have expanded the
comment saying why the analysis is valid to avoid me misunderstaning it
again in the future.
llvm-svn: 210052
This patch implements two things:
1. If we know one number is positive and another is negative, we return true as
signed addition of two opposite signed numbers will never overflow.
2. Implemented TODO : If one of the operands only has one non-zero bit, and if
the other operand has a known-zero bit in a more significant place than it
(not including the sign bit) the ripple may go up to and fill the zero, but
won't change the sign. e.x - (x & ~4) + 1
We make sure that we are ignoring 0 at MSB.
Patch by Suyog Sarda.
llvm-svn: 209746
This patch enables transformations:
BinOp(shuffle(v1), shuffle(v2)) -> shuffle(BinOp(v1, v2))
BinOp(shuffle(v1), const1) -> shuffle(BinOp, const2)
They allow to eliminate extra shuffles in some cases.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D3525
llvm-svn: 208488
definition below all of the header #include lines, lib/Transforms/...
edition.
This one is tricky for two reasons. We again have a couple of passes
that define something else before the includes as well. I've sunk their
name macros with the DEBUG_TYPE.
Also, InstCombine contains headers that need DEBUG_TYPE, so now those
headers #define and #undef DEBUG_TYPE around their code, leaving them
well formed modular headers. Fixing these headers was a large motivation
for all of these changes, as "leaky" macros of this form are hard on the
modules implementation.
llvm-svn: 206844
header files and into the cpp files.
These files will require more touches as the header files actually use
DEBUG(). Eventually, I'll have to introduce a matched #define and #undef
of DEBUG_TYPE for the header files, but that comes as step N of many to
clean all of this up.
llvm-svn: 206777
name might indicate, it is an iterator over the types in an instruction
in the IR.... You see where this is going.
Another step of modularizing the support library.
llvm-svn: 202815
I am really sorry for the noise, but the current state where some parts of the
code use TD (from the old name: TargetData) and other parts use DL makes it
hard to write a patch that changes where those variables come from and how
they are passed along.
llvm-svn: 201827
This logic hadn't been updated to handle FastMathFlags, and it took me a while to detect it because it doesn't show up in a simple search for CreateFAdd.
llvm-svn: 199629
The earlier change list introduced the following inst combines:
B * (uitofp i1 C) —> select C, B, 0
A * (1 - uitofp i1 C) —> select C, 0, A
select C, 0, B + select C, A, 0 —> select C, A, B
Together these 3 changes would simplify :
A * (1 - uitofp i1 C) + B * uitofp i1 C
down to :
select C, B, A
In practice we found that the first two substitutions can have a
negative effect on performance, because they reduce opportunities to
use FMA contractions; between the two options FMAs are often the
better choice. This change list amends the previous one to enable
just these inst combines:
select C, B, 0 + select C, 0, A —> select C, B, A
A * (1 - uitofp i1 C) + B * uitofp i1 C —> select C, B, A
llvm-svn: 182499
