1
0
mirror of https://github.com/RPCS3/llvm-mirror.git synced 2025-02-01 05:01:59 +01:00

780 Commits

Author SHA1 Message Date
Eli Friedman
f9df848755 [ConstantFold] Fold binary arithmetic on scalable vector splats.
It's a nice simplification, and it confuses instcombine if we don't do
it.

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D87422
2020-09-11 16:41:58 -07:00
Juneyoung Lee
55591e689c [ValueTracking] isKnownNonZero, computeKnownBits for freeze
This implements support for isKnownNonZero, computeKnownBits when freeze is involved.

```
  br (x != 0), BB1, BB2
BB1:
  y = freeze x
```

In the above program, we can say that y is non-zero. The reason is as follows:

(1) If x was poison, `br (x != 0)` raised UB
(2) If x was fully undef, the branch again raised UB
(3) If x was non-zero partially undef, say `undef | 1`, `freeze x` will return a nondeterministic value which is also non-zero.
(4) If x was just a concrete value, it is trivial

Reviewed By: nikic

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D75808
2020-09-10 08:07:38 +09:00
Nikita Popov
938cb930df [InstCombine] Fold abs of known negative operand
If we know that the abs operand is known negative, we can replace
it with a neg.

To avoid computing known bits twice, I've removed the fold for the
non-negative case from InstSimplify. Both the non-negative and the
negative case are handled by InstCombine now, with one known bits call.

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D87196
2020-09-08 20:14:35 +02:00
Nikita Popov
587a99fa86 [InstSimplify] Fold degenerate abs of abs form
This addresses the remaining issue from D87188. Due to a series of
folds, we may end up with abs-of-abs represented as
x == 0 ? -abs(x) : abs(x). Rather than recognizing this as a special
abs pattern and doing an abs-of-abs fold on it afterwards,
I'm directly folding this to one of the select operands in InstSimplify.

The general pattern falls into the "select with operand replaced"
category, but that fold is not powerful enough to recognize that
both hands of the select are the same for value zero.

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D87197
2020-09-06 09:43:08 +02:00
Nikita Popov
4af70f1516 [InstSimplify] Add tests for a peculiar abs of abs form (NFC)
This pattern shows up when canonicalizing to spf abs form to
intrinsic abs form.
2020-09-05 21:42:22 +02:00
Nikita Popov
1eb2ecc5c6 [InstSimplify] Fold min/max based on dominating condition
If we have a dominating condition that x >= y, then umax(x, y) is x,
etc. I'm doing this in InstSimplify as the corresponding transform
for the select form is also done there.

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D87168
2020-09-05 16:16:40 +02:00
Nikita Popov
c0ba2ac803 [InstSimplify] Add tests for min/max with dominating condition (NFC) 2020-09-04 23:45:54 +02:00
Bryan Chan
a99283db0a [EarlyCSE] Verify hash code in regression tests
As discussed in D86843, -earlycse-debug-hash should be used in more regression
tests to catch inconsistency between the hashing and the equivalence check.

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D86863
2020-09-04 10:40:35 -04:00
Bryan Chan
c65dfd8c46 Replace CRLF with LF; NFC 2020-09-03 15:30:08 -04:00
Nikita Popov
556e0d5173 [InstSimplify] Protect against more poison in SimplifyWithOpReplaced (PR47322)
Replace the check for poison-producing instructions in
SimplifyWithOpReplaced() with the generic helper canCreatePoison()
that properly handles poisonous shifts and thus avoids the problem
from PR47322.

This additionally fixes a bug in IIQ.UseInstrInfo=false mode, which
previously could have caused this code to ignore poison flags.
Setting UseInstrInfo=false should reduce the possible optimizations,
not increase them.

This is not a full solution to the problem, as poison could be
introduced more indirectly. This is just a minimal, easy to backport
fix.

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D86834
2020-08-29 21:59:39 +02:00
Roman Lebedev
939daf89ed [NFC][InstSimplify] Add a note to PHI CSE tests that they are all negative tests
As discussed in https://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-commits/Week-of-Mon-20200824/824235.html
even though it seems worthwhile doing so in InstSimplify,
we really can't do that there, because the other PHI wouldn't be
def-reachable from the original PHI.
2020-08-29 13:13:06 +03:00
Owen Anderson
df34423d50 Revert "[InstSimplify][EarlyCSE] Try to CSE PHI nodes in the same basic block"
This reverts commit 6102310d814ad73eab60a88b21dd70874f7a056f.  It
appears to cause compilation non-determinism and caused stage3
mismatches.
2020-08-28 23:43:42 +00:00
Roman Lebedev
2088bfe3c4 [InstSimplify][EarlyCSE] Try to CSE PHI nodes in the same basic block
Apparently, we don't do this, neither in EarlyCSE, nor in InstSimplify,
nor in (old) GVN, but do in NewGVN and SimplifyCFG of all places..

While i could teach EarlyCSE how to hash PHI nodes,
we can't really do much (anything?) even if we find two identical
PHI nodes in different basic blocks, same-BB case is the interesting one,
and if we teach InstSimplify about it (which is what i wanted originally,
https://reviews.llvm.org/D86530), we get EarlyCSE support for free.

So i would think this is pretty uncontroversial.

On vanilla llvm test-suite + RawSpeed, this has the following effects:
```
| statistic name                                     | baseline  | proposed  |      Δ |        % |    \|%\| |
|----------------------------------------------------|-----------|-----------|-------:|---------:|---------:|
| instsimplify.NumPHICSE                             | 0         | 23779     |  23779 |    0.00% |    0.00% |
| asm-printer.EmittedInsts                           | 7942328   | 7942392   |     64 |    0.00% |    0.00% |
| assembler.ObjectBytes                              | 273069192 | 273084704 |  15512 |    0.01% |    0.01% |
| correlated-value-propagation.NumPhis               | 18412     | 18539     |    127 |    0.69% |    0.69% |
| early-cse.NumCSE                                   | 2183283   | 2183227   |    -56 |    0.00% |    0.00% |
| early-cse.NumSimplify                              | 550105    | 542090    |  -8015 |   -1.46% |    1.46% |
| instcombine.NumAggregateReconstructionsSimplified  | 73        | 4506      |   4433 | 6072.60% | 6072.60% |
| instcombine.NumCombined                            | 3640264   | 3664769   |  24505 |    0.67% |    0.67% |
| instcombine.NumDeadInst                            | 1778193   | 1783183   |   4990 |    0.28% |    0.28% |
| instcount.NumCallInst                              | 1758401   | 1758799   |    398 |    0.02% |    0.02% |
| instcount.NumInvokeInst                            | 59478     | 59502     |     24 |    0.04% |    0.04% |
| instcount.NumPHIInst                               | 330557    | 330533    |    -24 |   -0.01% |    0.01% |
| instcount.TotalInsts                               | 8831952   | 8832286   |    334 |    0.00% |    0.00% |
| simplifycfg.NumInvokes                             | 4300      | 4410      |    110 |    2.56% |    2.56% |
| simplifycfg.NumSimpl                               | 1019808   | 999607    | -20201 |   -1.98% |    1.98% |
```
I.e. it fires ~24k times, causes +110 (+2.56%) more `invoke` -> `call`
transforms, and counter-intuitively results in *more* instructions total.

That being said, the PHI count doesn't decrease that much,
and looking at some examples, it seems at least some of them
were previously getting PHI CSE'd in SimplifyCFG of all places..

I'm adjusting `Instruction::isIdenticalToWhenDefined()` at the same time.
As a comment in `InstCombinerImpl::visitPHINode()` already stated,
there are no guarantees on the ordering of the operands of a PHI node,
so if we just naively compare them, we may false-negatively say that
the nodes are not equal when the only difference is operand order,
which is especially important since the fold is in InstSimplify,
so we can't rely on InstCombine sorting them beforehand.

Fixing this for the general case is costly (geomean +0.02%),
and does not appear to catch anything in test-suite, but for
the same-BB case, it's trivial, so let's fix at least that.

As per http://llvm-compile-time-tracker.com/compare.php?from=04879086b44348cad600a0a1ccbe1f7776cc3cf9&to=82bdedb888b945df1e9f130dd3ac4dd3c96e2925&stat=instructions
this appears to cause geomean +0.03% compile time increase (regression),
but geomean -0.01%..-0.04% code size decrease (improvement).
2020-08-27 18:47:04 +03:00
Roman Lebedev
46ec32bc09 [NFC][EarlyCSE][InstSimplify] Add tests for CSE of PHI nodes
PHI nodes depend on the block they're in,
so we can only deal with the most basic case of same-BB PHI's.
2020-08-27 18:47:03 +03:00
Arthur Eubanks
d74ec65308 [ConstProp] Remove ConstantPropagation
As discussed in
http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2020-July/143801.html.

Currently no users outside of unit tests.

Replace all instances in tests of -constprop with -instsimplify.
Notable changes in tests:
* vscale.ll - @llvm.sadd.sat.nxv16i8 is evaluated by instsimplify, use a fake intrinsic instead
* InsertElement.ll - insertelement undef is removed by instsimplify in @insertelement_undef
llvm/test/Transforms/ConstProp moved to llvm/test/Transforms/InstSimplify/ConstProp

Reviewed By: lattner, nikic

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D85159
2020-08-26 15:51:30 -07:00
Nikita Popov
d8d374b2b3 [InstSimplify] Fold min/max intrinsic based on icmp of operands
This is a reboot of D84655, now performing the inner icmp
simplification query without undef folds.

It should be possible to handle the current foldMinMaxSharedOp()
fold based on this, by moving the logic into icmp of min/max instead,
making it more general. We can't drop the folds for constant operands,
because those also allow undef, which we exclude here.

The tests use assumes for exhaustive coverage, and have a few
more examples of misc folds we get based on icmp simplification.

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D85929
2020-08-26 22:02:57 +02:00
Nikita Popov
9af50bfcdc [InstSimplify] Add additional umax tests (NFC)
A sample of some folds we get if we perform icmp simplification
on min/max intrinsics.
2020-08-26 22:02:56 +02:00
Arthur Eubanks
4c381d496d [InstSimplify] Simplify to vector constants when possible
InstSimplify should do all transformations that ConstProp does, but
one thing that ConstProp does that InstSimplify wouldn't is inline
vector instructions that are constants, e.g. into a ret.

Previously vector instructions wouldn't be inlined in InstSimplify
because llvm::Simplify*Instruction() would return nullptr for specific
instructions, such as vector instructions that were actually constants,
if it couldn't simplify them.

This changes SimplifyInsertElementInst, SimplifyExtractElementInst, and
SimplifyShuffleVectorInst to return a vector constant when possible.

Reviewed By: efriedma

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D85946
2020-08-26 11:40:36 -07:00
Juneyoung Lee
65c4cb9e7b [ValueTracking] Let getGuaranteedNonPoisonOp find multiple non-poison operands
This patch helps getGuaranteedNonPoisonOp find multiple non-poison operands.

Instead of special-casing llvm.assume, I think it is also a viable option to
add noundef to Intrinsics.td. If it makes sense, I'll make a patch for that.

Reviewed By: jdoerfert

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D86477
2020-08-26 04:40:21 +09:00
Juneyoung Lee
e44db8bec4 [ValueTracking] Add a noundef test for D86477; NFC 2020-08-26 04:40:21 +09:00
Arthur Eubanks
36bc68f568 [ConstProp] Handle insertelement constants
Previously ConstantFoldExtractElementInstruction() would only work with
insertelement instructions, not contants. This properly handles
insertelement constants as well.

Reviewed By: efriedma

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D85865
2020-08-13 15:59:17 -07:00
Nikita Popov
ef8e7a4d0a [InstSimplify] Add tests for assume with min/max intrinsic (NFC)
If we assume one of the operands is smaller/greater, then min/max
may be simplified.
2020-08-13 22:10:07 +02:00
Nikita Popov
3cea08454d [ValueTracking] Add abs intrinsics support to computeConstantRange()
Implementation is the same as for SPF_ABS.
2020-08-12 22:28:46 +02:00
Nikita Popov
fe50645fc5 [InstSimplify] Add additional abs intrinsic icmp tests (NFC)
While abs >= 0 already folds, some variations thereon don't.
2020-08-12 22:28:46 +02:00
Nikita Popov
5901f3abc5 [InstSimplify] Extract abs intrinsic tests into separate file (NFC)
Also move some tests from InstCombine to InstSimplify,
as they are already handled by InstSimplify.
2020-08-12 22:28:46 +02:00
Nikita Popov
2a8504a89f [ValueTracking] Support min/max intrinsics in computeConstantRange()
The implementation is the same as for the SPF_* case.
2020-08-12 22:07:29 +02:00
Nikita Popov
cfe9647681 [InstSimplify] Add tests for icmp of min/max with constants (NFC)
Test the case where the constants are not the same, but the result
is still known.
2020-08-12 22:07:29 +02:00
Craig Topper
0308690c50 Recommit "[InstSimplify] Remove select ?, undef, X -> X and select ?, X, undef -> X transforms" and its follow up patches
This recommits the following patches now that D85684 has landed

1cf6f210a2e [IR] Disable select ? C : undef -> C fold in ConstantFoldSelectInstruction unless we know C isn't poison.
469da663f2d [InstSimplify] Re-enable select ?, undef, X -> X transform when X is provably not poison
122b0640fc9 [InstSimplify] Don't fold vectors of partial undef in SimplifySelectInst if the non-undef element value might produce poison
ac0af12ed2f [InstSimplify] Add test cases for opportunities to fold select ?, X, undef -> X when we can prove X isn't poison
9b1e95329af [InstSimplify] Remove select ?, undef, X -> X and select ?, X, undef -> X transforms
2020-08-12 10:45:27 -07:00
Sanjay Patel
5b7d18ac79 [InstSimplify] fold min/max with matching min/max operands
I think this is the last remaining translation of an existing
instcombine transform for the corresponding cmp+sel idiom.

This interpretation is more general though - we can remove
mismatched signed/unsigned combinations in addition to the
more obvious cases.

min/max(X, Y) must produce X or Y as the result, so this is
just another clause in the existing transform that was already
matching a min/max of min/max.
2020-08-11 11:23:15 -04:00
Sanjay Patel
66663f8432 [InstSimplify] add tests for min/max intrinsics with common operands; NFC
There are 4*4*4 = 64 variations. We currently handle some, but not all,
of the alternative patterns with cmp+sel in instcombine.
2020-08-11 11:23:15 -04:00
Arthur Eubanks
e2b96556b2 [InstSimplify][test] Remove unused parameter in vscale.ll
Reviewed By: huihuiz

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D85688
2020-08-10 14:48:32 -07:00
Nikita Popov
c82a20fd22 [InstSimplify] Add test for expand binop undef issue (NFC)
Add test case from https://reviews.llvm.org/D83360#2146539.
2020-08-10 22:39:59 +02:00
Sanjay Patel
01843e6c65 [InstSimplify] avoid crashing by trying to rem-by-zero
Bug was noted in the post-commit comments for:
rGe8760bb9a8a3
2020-08-06 16:06:31 -04:00
Sanjay Patel
12ef22f0e5 [PatternMatch] allow intrinsic form of min/max with existing matchers
I skimmed the existing users of these matchers and don't see any problems
(eg, the caller assumes the matched value was a select instruction without checking).

So I think we can generalize the matching to allow the new intrinsics or the cmp+select idioms.

I did not find any unit tests for the matchers, so added some basics there. The instsimplify
tests are adapted from existing tests for the cmp+select pattern and cover the folds in
simplifyICmpWithMinMax().

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D85230
2020-08-06 10:50:24 -04:00
Sanjay Patel
82aa9a6b56 [InstSimplify] fold icmp with mul nsw and constant operands
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/slvl

  Name: mul nsw with icmp eq
  Pre: (C2 % C1) != 0
  %a = mul nsw i8 %x, C1
  %r = icmp eq i8 %a, C2
    =>
  %r = false

  Name: mul nsw with icmp ne
  Pre: (C2 % C1) != 0
  %a = mul nsw i8 %x, C1
  %r = icmp ne i8 %a, C2
    =>
  %r = true

Follow-up to the 'nuw' variation added with:
rGf879c9b79621
2020-08-05 14:38:39 -04:00
Sanjay Patel
60815c576a [InstSimplify] fold icmp with mul nuw and constant operands
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/pZEr

  Name: mul nuw with icmp eq
  Pre: (C2 %u C1) != 0
  %a = mul nuw i8 %x, C1
  %r = icmp eq i8 %a, C2
    =>
  %r = false

  Name: mul nuw with icmp ne
  Pre: (C2 %u C1) != 0
  %a = mul nuw i8 %x, C1
  %r = icmp ne i8 %a, C2
    =>
  %r = true

There are potentially several other transforms we need to add based on:
D51625
...but it doesn't look like there was follow-up to that patch.
2020-08-05 14:32:17 -04:00
Sanjay Patel
f3548b0c21 [InstSimplify] add vector tests for icmp with mul nuw; NFC
Also, the naming was off on a couple of tests.
2020-08-05 14:32:17 -04:00
Sanjay Patel
b11ddc51b9 [InstSimplify] add tests for icmp with 'mul nuw' operand; NFC 2020-08-05 12:46:45 -04:00
Xavier Denis
fc5d02688b [InstSimplify] Peephole optimization for icmp (urem X, Y), X
This revision adds the following peephole optimization
and it's negation:

    %a = urem i64 %x, %y
    %b = icmp ule i64 %a, %x
    ====>
    %b = true

With John Regehr's help this optimization was checked with Alive2
which suggests it should be valid.

This pattern occurs in the bound checks of Rust code, the program

    const N: usize = 3;
    const T = u8;

    pub fn split_mutiple(slice: &[T]) -> (&[T], &[T]) {
        let len = slice.len() / N;
        slice.split_at(len * N)
    }

the method call slice.split_at will check that len * N is within
the bounds of slice, this bounds check is after some transformations
turned into the urem seen above and then LLVM fails to optimize it
any further. Adding this optimization would cause this bounds check
to be fully optimized away.

ref: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/74938

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D85092
2020-08-04 20:48:37 +02:00
Xavier Denis
40de912d78 [InstSimplify] Add tests for icmp with urem divisor (NFC) 2020-08-04 20:45:20 +02:00
Sanjay Patel
e8f3b62b99 [InstSimplify] add tests for compare of min/max; NFC
The test are adapted from the existing tests for cmp/select idioms.
2020-08-04 13:55:30 -04:00
Sanjay Patel
46f44cd641 [InstSimplify] fold nested min/max intrinsics with constant operands
This is based on the existing code for the non-intrinsic idioms
in InstCombine.

The vector constant constraint is non-obvious: undefs should be
ok in the outer call, but they can't propagate safely from the
inner call in all cases. Example:

https://alive2.llvm.org/ce/z/-2bVbM
  define <2 x i8> @src(<2 x i8> %x) {
  %0:
    %m = umin <2 x i8> %x, { 7, undef }
    %m2 = umin <2 x i8> { 9, 9 }, %m
    ret <2 x i8> %m2
  }
  =>
  define <2 x i8> @tgt(<2 x i8> %x) {
  %0:
    %m = umin <2 x i8> %x, { 7, undef }
    ret <2 x i8> %m
  }
  Transformation doesn't verify!
  ERROR: Value mismatch

  Example:
  <2 x i8> %x = < undef, undef >

  Source:
  <2 x i8> %m = < #x00 (0)	[based on undef value], #x00 (0) >
  <2 x i8> %m2 = < #x00 (0), #x00 (0) >

  Target:
  <2 x i8> %m = < #x07 (7), #x10 (16) >
  Source value: < #x00 (0), #x00 (0) >
  Target value: < #x07 (7), #x10 (16) >
2020-08-04 08:44:48 -04:00
Sanjay Patel
99b9c23a90 [InstSimplify] add tests for min/max with constants; NFC 2020-08-04 08:02:33 -04:00
Sanjay Patel
e545f2a08e [InstSimplify] fold variations of max-of-min with common operand
https://alive2.llvm.org/ce/z/ZtxpZ3
2020-08-03 15:02:46 -04:00
Sanjay Patel
7591195747 [InstSimplify] add tests for min-of-max variants; NFC 2020-08-03 15:02:46 -04:00
Sanjay Patel
a4319ccb7e [InstSimplify] fold max (max X, Y), X --> max X, Y
https://alive2.llvm.org/ce/z/VGgG3M
2020-08-02 11:50:58 -04:00
Sanjay Patel
33336c7314 [InstSimplify] add tests for max(max x,y), x) and variants; NFC 2020-08-02 11:50:47 -04:00
Craig Topper
183d6fbbe7 [InstSimplify] Fold abs(abs(x)) -> abs(x)
It's always safe to pick the earlier abs regardless of the nsw flag. We'll just lose it if it is on the outer abs but not the inner abs.

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D85053
2020-08-01 13:25:00 -07:00
Sanjay Patel
afc3df8955 [InstSimplify] simplify abs if operand is known non-negative
abs() should be rare enough that using value tracking is not going
to be a compile-time cost burden, so use it to reduce a variety of
potential patterns. We do this in DAGCombiner too.

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D85043
2020-08-01 07:47:06 -04:00
Sanjay Patel
5c3a911802 [InstSimplify] add abs test with assume; NFC 2020-08-01 07:47:06 -04:00