Summary:
The llvm.invariant.start and llvm.invariant.end intrinsics currently
support specifying invariant memory objects only in the default address
space.
With this change, these intrinsics are overloaded for any adddress space
for memory objects
and we can use these llvm invariant intrinsics in non-default address
spaces.
Example: llvm.invariant.start.p1i8(i64 4, i8 addrspace(1)* %ptr)
This overloaded intrinsic is needed for representing final or invariant
memory in managed languages.
Reviewers: apilipenko, reames
Subscribers: llvm-commits
llvm-svn: 276447
Just because we can constant fold the result of an instruction does not
imply that we can delete the instruction. It may have side effects.
This fixes PR28655.
llvm-svn: 276389
Summary:
The llvm.invariant.start and llvm.invariant.end intrinsics currently
support specifying invariant memory objects only in the default address space.
With this change, these intrinsics are overloaded for any adddress space for memory objects
and we can use these llvm invariant intrinsics in non-default address spaces.
Example: llvm.invariant.start.p1i8(i64 4, i8 addrspace(1)* %ptr)
This overloaded intrinsic is needed for representing final or invariant memory in managed languages.
Reviewers: tstellarAMD, reames, apilipenko
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D22519
llvm-svn: 276316
Summary: In r275989 we enabled the folding of `logic(cast(icmp), cast(icmp))` to `cast(logic(icmp, icmp))`. Here we add more test cases to assure this folding works for all logical operations `and`/`or`/`xor`.
Reviewers: grosser
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D22561
Contributed-by: Matthias Reisinger
llvm-svn: 276105
The pattern may look more obviously like a sext if written as:
define i32 @g(i16 %x) {
%zext = zext i16 %x to i32
%xor = xor i32 %zext, 32768
%add = add i32 %xor, -32768
ret i32 %add
}
We already have that fold in visitAdd().
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D22477
llvm-svn: 276035
Summary:
Currently, InstCombine is already able to fold expressions of the form `logic(cast(A), cast(B))` to the simpler form `cast(logic(A, B))`, where logic designates one of `and`/`or`/`xor`. This transformation is implemented in `foldCastedBitwiseLogic()` in InstCombineAndOrXor.cpp. However, this optimization will not be performed if both `A` and `B` are `icmp` instructions. The decision to preclude casts of `icmp` instructions originates in r48715 in combination with r261707, and can be best understood by the title of the former one:
> Transform (zext (or (icmp), (icmp))) to (or (zext (cimp), (zext icmp))) if at least one of the (zext icmp) can be transformed to eliminate an icmp.
Apparently, it introduced a transformation that is a reverse of the transformation that is done in `foldCastedBitwiseLogic()`. Its purpose is to expose pairs of `zext icmp` that would subsequently be optimized by `transformZExtICmp()` in InstCombineCasts.cpp. Therefore, in order to avoid an endless loop of switching back and forth between these two transformations, the one in `foldCastedBitwiseLogic()` has been restricted to exclude `icmp` instructions which is mirrored in the responsible check:
`if ((!isa<ICmpInst>(Cast0Src) || !isa<ICmpInst>(Cast1Src)) && ...`
This check seems to sort out more cases than necessary because:
- the reverse transformation is obviously done for `or` instructions only
- and also not every `zext icmp` pair is necessarily the result of this reverse transformation
Therefore we now remove this check and replace it by a more finegrained one in `shouldOptimizeCast()` that now rejects only those `logic(zext(icmp), zext(icmp))` that would be able to be optimized by `transformZExtICmp()`, which also avoids the mentioned endless loop. That means we are now able to also simplify expressions of the form `logic(cast(icmp), cast(icmp))` to `cast(logic(icmp, icmp))` (`cast` being an arbitrary `CastInst`).
As an example, consider the following IR snippet
```
%1 = icmp sgt i64 %a, %b
%2 = zext i1 %1 to i8
%3 = icmp slt i64 %a, %c
%4 = zext i1 %3 to i8
%5 = and i8 %2, %4
```
which would now be transformed to
```
%1 = icmp sgt i64 %a, %b
%2 = icmp slt i64 %a, %c
%3 = and i1 %1, %2
%4 = zext i1 %3 to i8
```
This issue became apparent when experimenting with the programming language Julia, which makes use of LLVM. Currently, Julia lowers its `Bool` datatype to LLVM's `i8` (also see https://github.com/JuliaLang/julia/pull/17225). In fact, the above IR example is the lowered form of the Julia snippet `(a > b) & (a < c)`. Like shown above, this may introduce `zext` operations, casting between `i1` and `i8`, which could for example hinder ScalarEvolution and Polly on certain code.
Reviewers: grosser, vtjnash, majnemer
Subscribers: majnemer, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D22511
Contributed-by: Matthias Reisinger
llvm-svn: 275989
This is a partial implementation of a general fold for associative+commutative operators:
(op (cast (op X, C2)), C1) --> (cast (op X, op (C1, C2)))
(op (cast (op X, C2)), C1) --> (op (cast X), op (C1, C2))
There are 7 associative operators and 13 cast types, so this could potentially go a lot further.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D22421
llvm-svn: 275684
We were able to fold masked loads with an all-ones mask to a normal
load. However, we couldn't turn a masked load with a mask with mixed
ones and undefs into a normal load.
llvm-svn: 275380
In D21740, we discussed trying to make this a more general matcher. However, I didn't see a clean
way to handle the regular m_Not cases and these non-splat vector patterns, so I've opted for the
direct approach here. If there are other potential uses of areInverseVectorBitmasks(), we could
move that helper function to a higher level.
There is an open question as to which is of these forms should be considered the canonical IR:
%sel = select <4 x i1> <i1 true, i1 false, i1 false, i1 true>, <4 x i32> %a, <4 x i32> %b
%shuf = shufflevector <4 x i32> %a, <4 x i32> %b, <4 x i32> <i32 0, i32 5, i32 6, i32 3>
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D22114
llvm-svn: 275289
If a function is known to return one of its arguments, we can use that in order
to compute known bits of the return value.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D9397
llvm-svn: 275036
This isn't a sure thing (are 2 extra bitcasts less expensive than a logic op?),
but we'll try to err on the conservative side by going with the case that has
less IR instructions.
Note: This question came up in http://reviews.llvm.org/D22114 , but this part is
independent of that patch proposal, so I'm making this small change ahead of that
one.
See also:
http://reviews.llvm.org/rL274926
llvm-svn: 274932
