[PATCH] D90901: [DAGCombiner] Don't fold ((fma (fneg X), Y, (fneg Z)) to fneg (fma X, Y, Z))
Jim Lin via Phabricator via llvm-commits
llvm-commits at lists.llvm.org
Fri Nov 6 01:55:22 PST 2020
Jim added a comment.
In D90901#2378066 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D90901#2378066>, @craig.topper wrote:
> No test changes?
>
> The transform would be legal with no signed zeros fast math flag right? I believe that's checked in getNegatedExpression. But not checked in the X86 specific override.
>
> I think the same issue may also exist in ARMInstrVFP.td. It matches both (fneg (fma x, y, z)) and (fma (fneg x), y, (fneg z)) to the same instruction.
>
> // Match @llvm.fma.* intrinsics
> // (fneg (fma x, y, z)) -> (vfnma z, x, y)
> def : Pat<(fneg (fma (f64 DPR:$Dn), (f64 DPR:$Dm), (f64 DPR:$Ddin))),
> (VFNMAD DPR:$Ddin, DPR:$Dn, DPR:$Dm)>,
> Requires<[HasVFP4,HasDPVFP]>;
> def : Pat<(fneg (fma (f32 SPR:$Sn), (f32 SPR:$Sm), (f32 SPR:$Sdin))),
> (VFNMAS SPR:$Sdin, SPR:$Sn, SPR:$Sm)>,
> Requires<[HasVFP4]>;
> def : Pat<(fneg (fma (f16 HPR:$Sn), (f16 HPR:$Sm), (f16 (f16 HPR:$Sdin)))),
> (VFNMAH (f16 HPR:$Sdin), (f16 HPR:$Sn), (f16 HPR:$Sm))>,
> Requires<[HasFullFP16]>;
> // (fma (fneg x), y, (fneg z)) -> (vfnma z, x, y)
> def : Pat<(f64 (fma (fneg DPR:$Dn), DPR:$Dm, (fneg DPR:$Ddin))),
> (VFNMAD DPR:$Ddin, DPR:$Dn, DPR:$Dm)>,
> Requires<[HasVFP4,HasDPVFP]>;
> def : Pat<(f32 (fma (fneg SPR:$Sn), SPR:$Sm, (fneg SPR:$Sdin))),
> (VFNMAS SPR:$Sdin, SPR:$Sn, SPR:$Sm)>,
> Requires<[HasVFP4]>;
> def : Pat<(f16 (fma (fneg (f16 HPR:$Sn)), (f16 HPR:$Sm), (fneg (f16 HPR:$Sdin)))),
> (VFNMAH (f16 HPR:$Sdin), (f16 HPR:$Sn), (f16 HPR:$Sm))>,
> Requires<[HasFullFP16]>;
Yes, it is legal with no signed zeros fast math flag. I see that PowerPC deal with this case specifically.
Should I add the condition with no signed zero to permit this transform instead of deleting it?
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D90901/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D90901
More information about the llvm-commits
mailing list