[PATCH] D20774: [InstCombine] look through bitcasts to find selects
David Majnemer via llvm-commits
llvm-commits at lists.llvm.org
Thu Jun 2 16:15:34 PDT 2016
majnemer accepted this revision.
majnemer added a comment.
This revision is now accepted and ready to land.
LGTM with nits
================
Comment at: lib/Transforms/InstCombine/InstCombineAndOrXor.cpp:1647-1689
@@ -1646,17 +1646,45 @@
// If A is not a select of -1/0, this cannot match.
Value *Cond = nullptr;
- if (!match(A, m_SExt(m_Value(Cond))) || !Cond->getType()->isIntegerTy(1))
- return nullptr;
+ if (match(A, m_SExt(m_Value(Cond))) &&
+ Cond->getType()->getScalarType()->isIntegerTy(1)) {
- // ((cond?-1:0)&C) | (B&(cond?0:-1)) -> cond ? C : B.
- if (match(D, m_Not(m_SExt(m_Specific(Cond)))))
- return SelectInst::Create(Cond, C, B);
- if (match(D, m_SExt(m_Not(m_Specific(Cond)))))
- return SelectInst::Create(Cond, C, B);
-
- // ((cond?-1:0)&C) | ((cond?0:-1)&D) -> cond ? C : D.
- if (match(B, m_Not(m_SExt(m_Specific(Cond)))))
- return SelectInst::Create(Cond, C, D);
- if (match(B, m_SExt(m_Not(m_Specific(Cond)))))
- return SelectInst::Create(Cond, C, D);
+ // ((cond ? -1:0) & C) | (B & (cond ? 0:-1)) -> cond ? C : B.
+ if (match(D, m_Not(m_SExt(m_Specific(Cond)))))
+ return SelectInst::Create(Cond, C, B);
+ if (match(D, m_SExt(m_Not(m_Specific(Cond)))))
+ return SelectInst::Create(Cond, C, B);
+
+ // ((cond ? -1:0) & C) | ((cond ? 0:-1) & D) -> cond ? C : D.
+ if (match(B, m_Not(m_SExt(m_Specific(Cond)))))
+ return SelectInst::Create(Cond, C, D);
+ if (match(B, m_SExt(m_Not(m_Specific(Cond)))))
+ return SelectInst::Create(Cond, C, D);
+ }
+
+ // The sign-extended boolean condition may be hiding behind a bitcast. In that
+ // case, look for the same patterns as above. However, we need to bitcast the
+ // input operands to the select and bitcast the output of the select to match
+ // the expected types.
+ if (match(A, m_BitCast(m_SExt(m_Value(Cond)))) &&
+ Cond->getType()->getScalarType()->isIntegerTy(1)) {
+ Type *SrcType = cast<BitCastInst>(A)->getSrcTy();
+
+ // ((bc Cond) & C) | (B & (bc ~Cond)) --> bc (select Cond, (bc C), (bc B))
+ if (match(D, m_CombineOr(m_BitCast(m_Not(m_SExt(m_Specific(Cond)))),
+ m_BitCast(m_SExt(m_Not(m_Specific(Cond))))))) {
+ Value *BitcastC = Builder.CreateBitCast(C, SrcType);
+ Value *BitcastB = Builder.CreateBitCast(B, SrcType);
+ Value *Select = Builder.CreateSelect(Cond, BitcastC, BitcastB);
+ return CastInst::Create(Instruction::BitCast, Select, A->getType());
+ }
+
+ // ((bc Cond) & C) | ((bc ~Cond) & D) --> bc (select Cond, (bc C), (bc D))
+ if (match(B, m_CombineOr(m_BitCast(m_Not(m_SExt(m_Specific(Cond)))),
+ m_BitCast(m_SExt(m_Not(m_Specific(Cond))))))) {
+ Value *BitcastC = Builder.CreateBitCast(C, SrcType);
+ Value *BitcastD = Builder.CreateBitCast(D, SrcType);
+ Value *Select = Builder.CreateSelect(Cond, BitcastC, BitcastD);
+ return CastInst::Create(Instruction::BitCast, Select, A->getType());
+ }
+ }
----------------
It would be nice if we could find a way to fold the code which handles the bitcast case with the code which doesn't.
http://reviews.llvm.org/D20774
More information about the llvm-commits
mailing list