The isNegatibleForFree/getNegatedExpression methods currently rely on a raw char value to indicate whether a negation is beneficial or not.
This patch replaces the char return value with an NegatibleCost enum to more clearly demonstrate what is implied.
It also renames isNegatibleForFree to getNegatibleCost to more accurately reflect whats going on.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D74221
Add a simplification to fuse a manual vector extract with shifts and
truncate into a bitcast.
Unpacking and packing values into vectors is only optimized with
extractelement instructions, not when manually unpacked using shifts
and truncates.
This patch simplifies shifts and truncates into a bitcast if possible.
Simplify (build_vec (trunc $1)
(trunc (srl $1 width))
(trunc (srl $1 (2 * width))) ...)
to (bitcast $1)
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D73892
AMDGPU and x86 at least both have separate controls for whether
denormal results are flushed on output, and for whether denormals are
implicitly treated as 0 as an input. The current DAGCombiner use only
really cares about the input treatment of denormals.
Updated FoldConstantArithmetic method signature to match that of
FoldConstantVectorArithmetic in preparation for merging the two
functions together
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=36544
This is the first step in combining the various
FoldConstantVectorArithmetic and FoldConstantVectorArithmetic
functions into one FoldConstantArithmetic function.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D72870
Unlike the existing code that I modified here, I only handle the
case where the strict_fsetcc has a single use. Not sure exactly
how to handle multiples uses.
Testing this on X86 is hard because we already have a other
combines that get rid of lowered version of the integer setcc that
this xor will eventually become. So this combine really just
saves a bunch of extra nodes being created. Not sure about other
targets.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D71816
This patch also fixes up a number of cases in DAGCombine and
SelectionDAGBuilder where the size of a scalable vector is used in a
fixed-width context (thus triggering an assertion failure).
Reviewers: efriedma, c-rhodes, rovka, cameron.mcinally
Reviewed By: efriedma
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D71215
This was unconditionally folding this to the source operand, even if the access was out of bounds. Use undef instead of the extract is not the first element.
This helps with some cases where 3-vectors are legalized and avoids processing the 4th component.
Original Patch by: arsenm (Matt Arsenault)
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D51589
If we are extracting a chunk of a vector that's a fraction of an
operand of the concatenated vector operand, we can extract directly
from one of those original operands.
This is another suggestion from PR42024:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=42024#c2
But I'm not sure yet if it will make any difference on those patterns.
It seems to help a few existing AVX512 tests though.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D72361
This is a positive combination as long as the NEG is NOT free,
as we are reducing the number of NEG from two to one.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D72312
This is possibly a small part towards solving PR42024:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=42024
The vectorizer is creating shuffles of concat like this:
%63 = shufflevector <4 x i64> %x, <4 x i64> undef, <8 x i32> <i32 0, i32 1, i32 2, i32 3, i32 0, i32 1, i32 2, i32 3>
%64 = shufflevector <8 x i64> %63, <8 x i64> undef, <8 x i32> <i32 0, i32 4, i32 1, i32 5, i32 2, i32 6, i32 3, i32 7>
That might be fixable in the vectorizers, but we're not allowed to fold that into a single shuffle in instcombine,
so we should have a backend backstop to convert that into the likely simpler form:
%64 = shufflevector <4 x i64> %x, <4 x i64> undef, <8 x i32> <i32 0, i32 0, i32 1, i32 1, i32 2, i32 2, i32 3, i32 3>
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D72300
This is the DAG node for SIGN_EXTEND_INREG :
t21: v4i32 = sign_extend_inreg t18, ValueType:ch:v4i16
It has two operands. The first one is the value it want to extend, and the second
one is the type to specify how to extend the value. For this example, it means
that, it is signed extend the t18(v4i32) from v4i16 to v4i32. That is
the semantics of c code:
vector int foo(vector int m) {
return m << 16 >> 16;
}
And it could be any vector type that hardware support the operation, though
the type 'v4i16' is NOT legal for the target. When we are trying to combine
the srl + sra, what we did now is calling the TLI.isOperationLegal(), which
will also check the legality of the type. That doesn't make sense.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D70230
The fold 'A - (A & (B - 1))' -> 'A & (0 - B)'
added in 8dab0a4a7d691f2704f1079538e0ef29548db159
is too specific. It should/can just be 'A - (A & B)' -> 'A & (~B)'
Even if we don't manage to fold `~` into B,
we have likely formed `ANDN` node.
Also, this way there's less similar-but-duplicate folds.
Name: X - (X & Y) -> X & (~Y)
%o = and i32 %X, %Y
%r = sub i32 %X, %o
=>
%n = xor i32 %Y, -1
%r = and i32 %X, %n
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/kOUl
See
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=44448https://reviews.llvm.org/D71499
The fold 'A - (A & (B - 1))' -> 'A & (0 - B)'
added in 8dab0a4a7d691f2704f1079538e0ef29548db159
is too specific. It should just be 'A - (A & B)' -> 'A & (~B)',
but we currently fail to sink that '~' into `(B - 1)`.
Name: ~(X - 1) -> (0 - X)
%o = add i32 %X, -1
%r = xor i32 %o, -1
=>
%r = sub i32 0, %X
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/rjU
While we do manage to fold integer-typed IR in middle-end,
we can't do that for the main motivational case of pointers.
There is @llvm.ptrmask() intrinsic which may or may not be helpful,
but i'm not sure it is fully considered canonical yet,
not everything is fully aware of it likely.
Name: PR44448 ptr - (ptr & C) -> ptr & (~C)
%bias = and i32 %ptr, C
%r = sub i32 %ptr, %bias
=>
%r = and i32 %ptr, ~C
See
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=44448https://reviews.llvm.org/D71499
While we do manage to fold integer-typed IR in middle-end,
we can't do that for the main motivational case of pointers.
There is @llvm.ptrmask() intrinsic which may or may not be helpful,
but i'm not sure it is fully considered canonical yet,
not everything is fully aware of it likely.
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/ZVdp
Name: ptr - (ptr & (alignment-1)) -> ptr & (0 - alignment)
%mask = add i64 %alignment, -1
%bias = and i64 %ptr, %mask
%r = sub i64 %ptr, %bias
=>
%highbitmask = sub i64 0, %alignment
%r = and i64 %ptr, %highbitmask
See
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=44448https://reviews.llvm.org/D71499
This was increasing the number of instructions when fsub was legalized
on AMDGPU with no signed zeros enabled. This fold should be guarded by
hasOneUse, and I don't think getNode should be doing that. The same
fold is already done as a regular combine through isNegatibleForFree.
This does require duplicating, even though isNegatibleForFree does
this combine already (and properly checks hasOneUse) to avoid one PPC
regression. In the regression, the outer fneg has nsz but the fsub
operand does not. isNegatibleForFree only sees the operand, and
doesn't see it's used from a nsz context. A nsz parameter needs to be
added and threaded through isNegatibleForFree to avoid this.
This moves the X86 specific transform from rL364407
into DAGCombiner to generically handle 'little to big' cases
(for example: extract_subvector(v2i64 bitcast(v16i8))). This
allows us to remove both the x86 implementation and the aarch64
bitcast(extract_subvector(bitcast())) combine.
Earlier patches that dealt with regressions initially exposed
by this patch:
rG5e5e99c041e4
rG0b38af89e2c0
Patch by: @RKSimon (Simon Pilgrim)
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D63815
Summary:
Without this check unnecessary FMA instructions are generated when the FSUB terms are reused.
This also has the side-effect that the same value is computed to different levels of precision, which can create undesirable effects if the results are used together in subsequent computation.
Reviewers: arsenm, nhaehnle, foad, tpr, dstuttard, spatel
Reviewed By: arsenm
Subscribers: jvesely, wdng, hiraditya, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D71656
Summary:
Right now, DAGCombiner process the nodes in an iplementation defined order. This tends to be fragile as optimisation may or may not kick in depending on the traversal order.
This is part of a larger effort to get the DAGCombiner to process its node in topological order.
Reviewers: craig.topper, efriedma, RKSimon, lebedev.ri
Subscribers: hiraditya, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D70921
Summary:
To find potential opportunities to use getMemBasePlusOffset() I looked at
all ISD::ADD uses found with the regex getNode\(ISD::ADD,.+,.+Ptr
in lib/CodeGen/SelectionDAG. If this patch is accepted I will convert
the files in the individual backends too.
The motivation for this change is our out-of-tree CHERI backend
(https://github.com/CTSRD-CHERI/llvm-project). We use a separate register
type to store pointers (128-bit capabilities, which are effectively
unforgeable and monotonic fat pointers). These capabilities permit a
reduced set of operations and therefore use a separate ValueType (iFATPTR).
to represent pointers implemented as capabilities.
Therefore, we need to avoid using ISD::ADD for our patterns that operate
on pointers and need to use a function that chooses ISD::ADD or a new
ISD::PTRADD opcode depending on the value type.
We originally added a new DAG.getPointerAdd() function, but after this
patch series we can modify the implementation of getMemBasePlusOffset()
instead. Avoiding direct uses of ISD::ADD for pointer types will
significantly reduce the amount of assertion/instruction selection
failures for us in future upstream merges.
Reviewers: spatel
Reviewed By: spatel
Subscribers: merge_guards_bot, hiraditya, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D71207
The initial attempt (rG89633320) botched the logic by reversing
the source/dest types. Added x86 tests for additional coverage.
The vector tests show a potential improvement (fold vector load
instead of broadcasting), but that's a known/existing problem.
This fold is done in IR by instcombine, and we have a special
form of it already here in DAGCombiner, but we want the more
general transform too:
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/3jZm
Name: general
Pre: (C1 + zext(C2) < 64)
%s = lshr i64 %x, C1
%t = trunc i64 %s to i16
%r = lshr i16 %t, C2
=>
%s2 = lshr i64 %x, C1 + zext(C2)
%a = and i64 %s2, zext((1 << (16 - C2)) - 1)
%r = trunc %a to i16
Name: special
Pre: C1 == 48
%s = lshr i64 %x, C1
%t = trunc i64 %s to i16
%r = lshr i16 %t, C2
=>
%s2 = lshr i64 %x, C1 + zext(C2)
%r = trunc %s2 to i16
...because D58017 exposes a regression without this fold.
Summary:
The use of a boolean isInteger flag (generally initialized using
VT.isInteger()) caused errors in our out-of-tree CHERI backend
(https://github.com/CTSRD-CHERI/llvm-project).
In our backend, pointers use a separate ValueType (iFATPTR) and therefore
.isInteger() returns false. This meant that getSetCCInverse() was using the
floating-point variant and generated incorrect code for us:
`(void *)0x12033091e < (void *)0xffffffffffffffff` would return false.
Committing this change will significantly reduce our merge conflicts
for each upstream merge.
Reviewers: spatel, bogner
Reviewed By: bogner
Subscribers: wuzish, arsenm, sdardis, nemanjai, jvesely, nhaehnle, hiraditya, kbarton, jrtc27, atanasyan, jsji, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D70917
This fold is done in IR by instcombine, and we have a special
form of it already here in DAGCombiner, but we want the more
general transform too:
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/3jZm
Name: general
Pre: (C1 + zext(C2) < 64)
%s = lshr i64 %x, C1
%t = trunc i64 %s to i16
%r = lshr i16 %t, C2
=>
%s2 = lshr i64 %x, C1 + zext(C2)
%a = and i64 %s2, zext((1 << (16 - C2)) - 1)
%r = trunc %a to i16
Name: special
Pre: C1 == 48
%s = lshr i64 %x, C1
%t = trunc i64 %s to i16
%r = lshr i16 %t, C2
=>
%s2 = lshr i64 %x, C1 + zext(C2)
%r = trunc %s2 to i16
...because D58017 exposes a regression without this fold.
This is not quite NFC because I changed the SDLoc to use the more
standard 'N' (the starting node for the fold).
This transform is a special-case of a more general fold that we
do in IR, but it seems like the general fold is needed here too
to avoid a potential regression seen in D58017.
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/3jZm
Summary: This combine showed up as needed when exploring the regression when processing the DAG in topological order.
Reviewers: craig.topper, efriedma, RKSimon, lebedev.ri
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D68195
MVE has a basic symmetry between it's normal loads/store operations and
the masked variants. This means that masked loads and stores can use
pre-inc and post-inc addressing modes, just like the standard loads and
stores already do.
To enable that, this patch adds all the relevant infrastructure for
treating masked loads/stores addressing modes in the same way as normal
loads/stores.
This involves:
- Adding an AddressingMode to MaskedLoadStoreSDNode, along with an extra
Offset operand that is added after the PtrBase.
- Extending the IndexedModeActions from 8bits to 16bits to store the
legality of masked operations as well as normal ones. This array is
fairly small, so doubling the size still won't make it very large.
Offset masked loads can then be controlled with
setIndexedMaskedLoadAction, similar to standard loads.
- The same methods that combine to indexed loads, such as
CombineToPostIndexedLoadStore, are adjusted to handle masked loads in
the same way.
- The ARM backend is then adjusted to make use of these indexed masked
loads/stores.
- The X86 backend is adjusted to hopefully be no functional changes.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D70176
We already have this simplification at node-creation-time, but
the test from:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=44139
...shows that we can combine our way to an assert/crash too.
