[llvm-commits] [llvm] r143318 - in /llvm/trunk: lib/Analysis/InstructionSimplify.cpp test/Transforms/InstSimplify/compare.ll
Duncan Sands
baldrick at free.fr
Sun Oct 30 12:56:37 PDT 2011
Author: baldrick
Date: Sun Oct 30 14:56:36 2011
New Revision: 143318
URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=143318&view=rev
Log:
Reapply commit 143214 with a fix: m_ICmp doesn't match conditions
with the given predicate, it matches any condition and returns the
predicate - d'oh! Original commit message:
The expression icmp eq (select (icmp eq x, 0), 1, x), 0 folds to false.
Spotted by my super-optimizer in 186.crafty and 450.soplex. We really
need a proper infrastructure for handling generalizations of this kind
of thing (which occur a lot), however this case is so simple that I decided
to go ahead and implement it directly.
Modified:
llvm/trunk/lib/Analysis/InstructionSimplify.cpp
llvm/trunk/test/Transforms/InstSimplify/compare.ll
Modified: llvm/trunk/lib/Analysis/InstructionSimplify.cpp
URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project/llvm/trunk/lib/Analysis/InstructionSimplify.cpp?rev=143318&r1=143317&r2=143318&view=diff
==============================================================================
--- llvm/trunk/lib/Analysis/InstructionSimplify.cpp (original)
+++ llvm/trunk/lib/Analysis/InstructionSimplify.cpp Sun Oct 30 14:56:36 2011
@@ -68,6 +68,20 @@
return Constant::getAllOnesValue(Ty);
}
+/// isSameCompare - Is V equivalent to the comparison "LHS Pred RHS"?
+static bool isSameCompare(Value *V, CmpInst::Predicate Pred, Value *LHS,
+ Value *RHS) {
+ CmpInst *Cmp = dyn_cast<CmpInst>(V);
+ if (!Cmp)
+ return false;
+ CmpInst::Predicate CPred = Cmp->getPredicate();
+ Value *CLHS = Cmp->getOperand(0), *CRHS = Cmp->getOperand(1);
+ if (CPred == Pred && CLHS == LHS && CRHS == RHS)
+ return true;
+ return CPred == CmpInst::getSwappedPredicate(Pred) && CLHS == RHS &&
+ CRHS == LHS;
+}
+
/// ValueDominatesPHI - Does the given value dominate the specified phi node?
static bool ValueDominatesPHI(Value *V, PHINode *P, const DominatorTree *DT) {
Instruction *I = dyn_cast<Instruction>(V);
@@ -416,40 +430,62 @@
}
assert(isa<SelectInst>(LHS) && "Not comparing with a select instruction!");
SelectInst *SI = cast<SelectInst>(LHS);
+ Value *Cond = SI->getCondition();
+ Value *TV = SI->getTrueValue();
+ Value *FV = SI->getFalseValue();
// Now that we have "cmp select(Cond, TV, FV), RHS", analyse it.
// Does "cmp TV, RHS" simplify?
- if (Value *TCmp = SimplifyCmpInst(Pred, SI->getTrueValue(), RHS, TD, DT,
- MaxRecurse)) {
- // It does! Does "cmp FV, RHS" simplify?
- if (Value *FCmp = SimplifyCmpInst(Pred, SI->getFalseValue(), RHS, TD, DT,
- MaxRecurse)) {
- // It does! If they simplified to the same value, then use it as the
- // result of the original comparison.
- if (TCmp == FCmp)
- return TCmp;
- Value *Cond = SI->getCondition();
- // If the false value simplified to false, then the result of the compare
- // is equal to "Cond && TCmp". This also catches the case when the false
- // value simplified to false and the true value to true, returning "Cond".
- if (match(FCmp, m_Zero()))
- if (Value *V = SimplifyAndInst(Cond, TCmp, TD, DT, MaxRecurse))
- return V;
- // If the true value simplified to true, then the result of the compare
- // is equal to "Cond || FCmp".
- if (match(TCmp, m_One()))
- if (Value *V = SimplifyOrInst(Cond, FCmp, TD, DT, MaxRecurse))
- return V;
- // Finally, if the false value simplified to true and the true value to
- // false, then the result of the compare is equal to "!Cond".
- if (match(FCmp, m_One()) && match(TCmp, m_Zero()))
- if (Value *V =
- SimplifyXorInst(Cond, Constant::getAllOnesValue(Cond->getType()),
- TD, DT, MaxRecurse))
- return V;
- }
+ Value *TCmp = SimplifyCmpInst(Pred, TV, RHS, TD, DT, MaxRecurse);
+ if (TCmp == Cond) {
+ // It not only simplified, it simplified to the select condition. Replace
+ // it with 'true'.
+ TCmp = getTrue(Cond->getType());
+ } else if (!TCmp) {
+ // It didn't simplify. However if "cmp TV, RHS" is equal to the select
+ // condition then we can replace it with 'true'. Otherwise give up.
+ if (!isSameCompare(Cond, Pred, TV, RHS))
+ return 0;
+ TCmp = getTrue(Cond->getType());
+ }
+
+ // Does "cmp FV, RHS" simplify?
+ Value *FCmp = SimplifyCmpInst(Pred, FV, RHS, TD, DT, MaxRecurse);
+ if (FCmp == Cond) {
+ // It not only simplified, it simplified to the select condition. Replace
+ // it with 'false'.
+ FCmp = getFalse(Cond->getType());
+ } else if (!FCmp) {
+ // It didn't simplify. However if "cmp FV, RHS" is equal to the select
+ // condition then we can replace it with 'false'. Otherwise give up.
+ if (!isSameCompare(Cond, Pred, FV, RHS))
+ return 0;
+ FCmp = getFalse(Cond->getType());
}
+ // If both sides simplified to the same value, then use it as the result of
+ // the original comparison.
+ if (TCmp == FCmp)
+ return TCmp;
+ // If the false value simplified to false, then the result of the compare
+ // is equal to "Cond && TCmp". This also catches the case when the false
+ // value simplified to false and the true value to true, returning "Cond".
+ if (match(FCmp, m_Zero()))
+ if (Value *V = SimplifyAndInst(Cond, TCmp, TD, DT, MaxRecurse))
+ return V;
+ // If the true value simplified to true, then the result of the compare
+ // is equal to "Cond || FCmp".
+ if (match(TCmp, m_One()))
+ if (Value *V = SimplifyOrInst(Cond, FCmp, TD, DT, MaxRecurse))
+ return V;
+ // Finally, if the false value simplified to true and the true value to
+ // false, then the result of the compare is equal to "!Cond".
+ if (match(FCmp, m_One()) && match(TCmp, m_Zero()))
+ if (Value *V =
+ SimplifyXorInst(Cond, Constant::getAllOnesValue(Cond->getType()),
+ TD, DT, MaxRecurse))
+ return V;
+
return 0;
}
Modified: llvm/trunk/test/Transforms/InstSimplify/compare.ll
URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project/llvm/trunk/test/Transforms/InstSimplify/compare.ll?rev=143318&r1=143317&r2=143318&view=diff
==============================================================================
--- llvm/trunk/test/Transforms/InstSimplify/compare.ll (original)
+++ llvm/trunk/test/Transforms/InstSimplify/compare.ll Sun Oct 30 14:56:36 2011
@@ -204,6 +204,24 @@
; CHECK: ret i1 %cond
}
+define i1 @select5(i32 %x) {
+; CHECK: @select5
+ %c = icmp eq i32 %x, 0
+ %s = select i1 %c, i32 1, i32 %x
+ %c2 = icmp eq i32 %s, 0
+ ret i1 %c2
+; CHECK: ret i1 false
+}
+
+define i1 @select6(i32 %x) {
+; CHECK: @select6
+ %c = icmp sgt i32 %x, 0
+ %s = select i1 %c, i32 %x, i32 4
+ %c2 = icmp eq i32 %s, 0
+ ret i1 %c2
+; CHECK: ret i1 %c2
+}
+
define i1 @urem1(i32 %X, i32 %Y) {
; CHECK: @urem1
%A = urem i32 %X, %Y
More information about the llvm-commits
mailing list