[llvm] [InstCombine] Canonicalize more saturated-add variants (PR #100008)
Rose Silicon via llvm-commits
llvm-commits at lists.llvm.org
Mon Jul 29 14:40:09 PDT 2024
RSilicon wrote:
> > > Your alive proof has
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ```
> > >
> > > define dso_local i8 @src3(i8 %x, i8 %c) {
> > >
> > > entry:
> > >
> > > %noZero = icmp ne i8 %c, 0
> > >
> > > call void @llvm.assume(i1 %noZero)
> > >
> > > %add = add nuw i8 %x, %c
> > >
> > > %c.not = xor i8 %c, -1
> > >
> > > %d = add i8 %c.not, 1
> > >
> > > %cmp.not = icmp ugt i8 %x, %d
> > >
> > > %cond = select i1 %cmp.not, i8 -1, i8 %add
> > >
> > > ret i8 %cond
> > >
> > > }
> > >
> > > ```
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > The `nuw` flag there says that the add never overflows and thus never saturates. The transform fails without the nuw. There's no check for the nuw in your transform.
> >
> > This shouldn't be in my proof. I apologize: it's actually malformed IR.
> >
> > nuw is impossible for x ugt -C ? x + C : -1;
>
> Why would it be malformed IR? The select would pick -1 in the case of overflow and the add would produce poison. The selects blocks the poison from propagating by picking -1. That's completely valid IR
LLVM would NEVER put nuw for x + C if x ugt -C was true.
Let C1 be the positive interpretation of -C in two's compliment.
x ugt C being true means x is at (unsigned least) C1 + 1. But, C + C1 would wrap. meaning X + C MUST wrap if X ugt -C.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/100008
More information about the llvm-commits
mailing list