[llvm] [DAG] Fold add(mul(add(A, CA), CM), CB) -> add(mul(A, CM), CM*CA+CB) (PR #90860)
Matt Arsenault via llvm-commits
llvm-commits at lists.llvm.org
Thu May 2 09:52:40 PDT 2024
- Previous message: [llvm] [DAG] Fold add(mul(add(A, CA), CM), CB) -> add(mul(A, CM), CM*CA+CB) (PR #90860)
- Next message: [llvm] [DAG] Fold add(mul(add(A, CA), CM), CB) -> add(mul(A, CM), CM*CA+CB) (PR #90860)
- Messages sorted by:
[ date ]
[ thread ]
[ subject ]
[ author ]
================
@@ -2838,6 +2838,36 @@ SDValue DAGCombiner::visitADDLike(SDNode *N) {
return DAG.getNode(ISD::ADD, DL, VT, Not, N0.getOperand(0));
}
+ // Fold add(mul(add(A, CA), CM), CB) -> add(mul(A, CM), CM*CA+CB).
+ // This can help if the inner add has multiple uses.
+ APInt CM, CA;
+ if (ConstantSDNode *CB = dyn_cast<ConstantSDNode>(N1)) {
+ if (sd_match(N0, m_OneUse(m_Mul(m_Add(m_Value(A), m_ConstInt(CA)),
+ m_ConstInt(CM)))) &&
+ TLI.isLegalAddImmediate(
+ (CA * CM + CB->getAPIntValue()).getSExtValue())) {
+ SDValue Mul =
+ DAG.getNode(ISD::MUL, SDLoc(N1), VT, A, DAG.getConstant(CM, DL, VT));
+ return DAG.getNode(
+ ISD::ADD, DL, VT, Mul,
----------------
arsenm wrote:
I think using constants in the proof is making this more permissive looking than it should be
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/90860
- Previous message: [llvm] [DAG] Fold add(mul(add(A, CA), CM), CB) -> add(mul(A, CM), CM*CA+CB) (PR #90860)
- Next message: [llvm] [DAG] Fold add(mul(add(A, CA), CM), CB) -> add(mul(A, CM), CM*CA+CB) (PR #90860)
- Messages sorted by:
[ date ]
[ thread ]
[ subject ]
[ author ]
More information about the llvm-commits
mailing list