[PATCH] D64275: [InstCombine] Generalize InstCombiner::foldAndOrOfICmpsOfAndWithPow2().

[Sanjay Patel via Phabricator via llvm-commits]

spatel added inline comments.


================
Comment at: llvm/lib/Transforms/InstCombine/InstCombineAndOrXor.cpp:908-910
+        B = Builder.CreateLShr(
+            ConstantInt::get(Ty, APInt::getSignMask(Ty->getScalarSizeInBits())),
+            B2);
----------------
lebedev.ri wrote:
> huihuiz wrote:
> > lebedev.ri wrote:
> > > spatel wrote:
> > > > lebedev.ri wrote:
> > > > > To be pointed out, this indeed creates an instruction while we don't know yet whether we will be able to do the fold,
> > > > > not great, but i think this is the smallest evil, the alternative solution would indeed be uglier..
> > > > Hmm...do we have a test where the temporary instruction is created, but the fold fails?
> > > > Last time I made that mistake, we infinite looped: the temporary instruction gets created and deleted triggering another round of combining and repeat forever.
> > > Oh, hmm.
> > Thank you for point this out! Indeed there are chances of infinite looping
> > 
> > see test
> > 
> > ```
> > define i1 @foo(i32 %k, i32 %c1, i32 %c2) {
> >   %t0 = shl i32 3, %c1
> >   %t1 = and i32 %t0, %k
> >   %t2 = icmp eq i32 %t1, 0
> >   %t3 = shl i32 %k, %c2
> >   %t4 = icmp sgt i32 %t3, -1
> >   %or = or i1 %t2, %t4
> >   ret i1 %or
> > }
> > 
> > ```
> > 
> > I am working on a solution now.
> > 
> Can we just manually delete the instruction if the fold fails?
> I'm sure that can be nicely wrapped into RAII wrapper.
I'm skeptical. I could be wrong, but it's not done anywhere else in instcombine?
Could we send 'B2' out as a partial result (for example, if it's not null, we matched), and then have the caller create the shift if needed?


Repository:
  rL LLVM

CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D64275/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D64275