[llvm] [X86] Don't always separate conditions in `(br (and/or cond0, cond1))` into separate branches (PR #81689)

[via llvm-commits]

================
@@ -2446,6 +2448,147 @@ SelectionDAGBuilder::EmitBranchForMergedCondition(const Value *Cond,
   SL->SwitchCases.push_back(CB);
 }
 
+// Collect dependencies on V recursively. This is used for the cost analysis in
+// `shouldKeepJumpConditionsTogether`.
+static bool
+collectInstructionDeps(SmallPtrSet<const Instruction *, 8> *Deps,
+                       const Value *V,
+                       SmallPtrSet<const Instruction *, 8> *Necessary = nullptr,
+                       unsigned Depth = 0) {
+  // Return false if we have an incomplete count.
+  if (Depth >= SelectionDAG::MaxRecursionDepth)
+    return false;
+
+  auto *I = dyn_cast<Instruction>(V);
+  if (I == nullptr)
+    return true;
+
+  if (Necessary != nullptr) {
+    // This instruction is necessary for the other side of the condition so
+    // don't count it.
+    if (Necessary->contains(I))
+      return true;
+  }
+
+  // Already added this dep.
+  if (!Deps->insert(I).second)
+    return true;
+
+  for (unsigned OpIdx = 0, E = I->getNumOperands(); OpIdx < E; ++OpIdx)
+    if (!collectInstructionDeps(Deps, I->getOperand(OpIdx), Necessary,
+                                Depth + 1))
+      return false;
+  return true;
+}
+
+bool SelectionDAGBuilder::shouldKeepJumpConditionsTogether(
+    const FunctionLoweringInfo &FuncInfo, const BranchInst &I,
+    Instruction::BinaryOps Opc, const Value *Lhs, const Value *Rhs,
+    TargetLoweringBase::CondMergingParams Params) const {
+  if (I.getNumSuccessors() != 2)
+    return false;
+
+  if (Params.BaseCost < 0)
+    return false;
+
+  // Baseline cost.
+  InstructionCost CostThresh = Params.BaseCost;
+
+  BranchProbabilityInfo *BPI = nullptr;
+  if (Params.LikelyBias || Params.UnlikelyBias)
+    BPI = FuncInfo.BPI;
+  if (BPI != nullptr) {
+    // See if we are either likely to get an early out or compute both lhs/rhs
+    // of the condition.
+    BasicBlock *IfFalse = I.getSuccessor(0);
+    BasicBlock *IfTrue = I.getSuccessor(1);
+
+    std::optional<bool> Likely;
+    if (BPI->isEdgeHot(I.getParent(), IfTrue))
+      Likely = true;
+    else if (BPI->isEdgeHot(I.getParent(), IfFalse))
+      Likely = false;
+
+    if (Likely) {
+      if (Opc == (*Likely ? Instruction::And : Instruction::Or))
+        // Its likely we will have to compute both lhs and rhs of condition
+        CostThresh += Params.LikelyBias;
+      else {
+        if (Params.UnlikelyBias < 0)
+          return false;
+        // Its likely we will get an early out.
+        CostThresh -= Params.UnlikelyBias;
+      }
+    }
+  }
+
+  if (CostThresh <= 0)
+    return false;
+
+  // Collect "all" instructions that lhs condition is dependent on.
+  SmallPtrSet<const Instruction *, 8> LhsDeps, RhsDeps;
+  collectInstructionDeps(&LhsDeps, Lhs);
+  // Collect "all" instructions that rhs condition is dependent on AND are
+  // dependencies of lhs. This gives us an estimate on which instructions we
+  // stand to save by splitting the condition.
+  if (!collectInstructionDeps(&RhsDeps, Rhs, &LhsDeps))
+    return false;
+  // Add the compare instruction itself unless its a dependency on the LHS.
+  if (const auto *RhsI = dyn_cast<Instruction>(Rhs))
+    if (!LhsDeps.contains(RhsI))
+      RhsDeps.insert(RhsI);
+
+  const auto &TLI = DAG.getTargetLoweringInfo();
+  const auto &TTI =
+      TLI.getTargetMachine().getTargetTransformInfo(*I.getFunction());
+
+  InstructionCost CostOfIncluding = 0;
+  // See if this instruction will need to computed independently of whether RHS
+  // is.
+  auto ShouldCountInsn = [&RhsDeps](const Instruction *Ins) {
+    for (const auto *U : Ins->users()) {
+      // If user is independent of RHS calculation we don't need to count it.
+      if (auto *UIns = dyn_cast<Instruction>(U))
+        if (!RhsDeps.contains(UIns))
----------------
goldsteinn wrote:

Realized there is a bug here, we should be checking that the use also doesn't equal `I.getCondition()`, otherwise we can end up overpruning. Have a fix, just testing if it implies any changes too the tuning. Will post tomorrow.

https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/81689