[llvm-dev] should we do this time-consuming transform in InstCombine?

[Zheng CZ Chen via llvm-dev]

Hi Sanjay,

for the original abs issue, I tested following pattern:

return (a+b) >= 0 ? (a+b) : -(a+b);  //works now, can be recognized as abs
return (a+b) >= 0 ? (a+b) : -a-b;    //works now

return (a-b) >= 0 ? (a-b) : -(a-b);  //works now
return (a-b) >= 0 ? (a-b) : -a+b;   //works now

return (a*b) >= 0 ? (a*b) : -(a*b);  //works now
return (a-b) >= 0 ? (a*b) : -a*b;   //doesn't work

return (a/b) >= 0 ? (a/b) : -(a/b);  //works now
return (a/b) >= 0 ? (a/b) : -a/b;   //doesn't work

return (a%b) >= 0 ? (a%b) : -a%b;   //doesn't work

I think I can start from MUL.

Thanks.

BRS//
Chen Zheng
Power Compiler Backend Developer




From:	Sanjay Patel <spatel at rotateright.com>
To:	Zheng CZ Chen <czhengsz at cn.ibm.com>
Cc:	Roman Lebedev <lebedev.ri at gmail.com>, llvm-dev
            <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>
Date:	2018/12/19 01:16 AM
Subject:	Re: [llvm-dev] should we do this time-consuming transform in
            InstCombine?



Yes, it looks like we are missing an IR canonicalization for 'mul' like
this:
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/ARs

  %neg = sub i8 0, %x
  %r = mul i8 %neg, %y
  =>
  %mul2 = mul i8 %x, %y
  %r = sub i8 0, %mul2

What other opcodes do you see where this transform applies?

If adding that transform is enough to solve the original problem, then we
don't need to add the larger pattern match that includes the select?

On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 1:26 AM Zheng CZ Chen via llvm-dev <
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
  Hi Roman,

  Thanks for your good idea. I think it can solve the abs issue very well.
  I can continue with my work now^-^.

  But if it is not abs and there is no select,
   %res = OP i32 %b, %a
  %sub = sub i32 0, %b
  %res2 = OP i32 %sub, %a

  theoretically, we can still do the following transform for the above
  pattern:
  %res2 = OP i32 %sub, %a ==> %res2 = sub i32 0, %res

  Not sure whether we can do it in instCombine.

  Thanks.

  BRS//
  Chen Zheng
  Power Compiler Backend Developer


  Inactive hide details for Roman Lebedev ---2018/12/18 03:45:06 PM---On
  Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 10:18 AM Zheng CZ Chen via llvm-devRoman Lebedev
  ---2018/12/18 03:45:06 PM---On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 10:18 AM Zheng CZ
  Chen via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:

  From: Roman Lebedev <lebedev.ri at gmail.com>
  To: Zheng CZ Chen <czhengsz at cn.ibm.com>
  Cc: llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
  Date: 2018/12/18 03:45 PM
  Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] should we do this time-consuming transform in
  InstCombine?



  On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 10:18 AM Zheng CZ Chen via llvm-dev
  <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
  >
  > Hi,
  Hi.

  > There is an opportunity in instCombine for following instruction
  pattern:
  >
  > %mul = mul nsw i32 %b, %a
  > %cmp = icmp sgt i32 %mul, -1
  > %sub = sub i32 0, %a
  > %mul2 = mul nsw i32 %sub, %b
  > %cond = select i1 %cmp, i32 %mul, i32 %mul2
  >
  > Source code for above pattern:
  > return (a*b) >=0 ? (a*b) : -a*b;
  >
  > Currently, llvm(-O3) can not recognize this as abs(a*b).
  >
  > I initially think we could do this in instCombine phase in opt. Below
  is what I think:
  >
  > %res = OP i32 %b, %a
  > %sub = sub i32 0, %b
  > %res2 = OP i32 %sub, %a
  >
  > We could do the transform:
  > %res2 = OP i32 %sub, %a ==> %res2 = sub i32 0, %res
  >
  > Then we can get the advantage:
  > 1: if %res2 is the only user of %sub, %sub can be eliminated;
  > 2: if %res2 is not the only user of %sub, we could change some heavy
  instruction like div to sub;
  > 3: expose more abs opportunity for later pass.
  >
  > But my concern is finding %res is a little compiling time-consuming.
  > At least we need MIN(user_count(%b), user_count(%a)) times to check if
  instruction with same opcode and same operands exists.
  In instcombine, no user checking is performed/allowed.
  This should match that *specific* pattern (other than verifying the
  correct equal binop types), although i have not tested it:

   ICmpInst::Predicate Pred;
   Value *A, *B, *Mul, *Sub, *Mul2;
   if (match(&SI,
             m_Select(m_ICmp(Pred,
                             m_CombineAnd(m_BinOp(m_Value(A), m_Value(B)),
                                          m_Value(Mul)),
                             m_AllOnes()),
                      m_Deferred(Mul),
                      m_CombineAnd(
                          m_c_BinOp(m_CombineAnd(m_Sub(m_Zero(), m_Deferred
  (A)),
                                                 m_Value(Sub)),
                                    m_Deferred(B)),
                          m_Value(Mul2)))) &&
       Pred == ICmpInst::Predicate::ICMP_SGT) {
   }

  > Could you guys give some comment? Is there any better idea for this
  transform?
  >
  > Thanks.
  >
  > BRS//
  > Chen Zheng
  > Power Compiler Backend Developer
  Roman.

  > _______________________________________________
  > LLVM Developers mailing list
  > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
  > http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev




  _______________________________________________
  LLVM Developers mailing list
  llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
  http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20181219/1bb5df82/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: graycol.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 105 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20181219/1bb5df82/attachment.gif>