[llvm-dev] How to add optimizations to InstCombine correctly?
Simon Pilgrim via llvm-dev
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
Sat Sep 16 06:46:23 PDT 2017
This conversation has (partially) moved on to D37896 now, but if possible I was hoping that we could perform this in DAGCombiner and remove the various target specific combines that we still have.
At least ARM/AARCH64 and X86 have cases that can hopefully be generalised and removed, but there will probably be a few legality/perf issues that will occur.
Simon.
> On 14 Sep 2017, at 06:23, Craig Topper <craig.topper at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Probably in visitMUL in DAGCombiner.cpp to be target independent. Or in LowerMUL in X86ISelLowering.cpp to be X86 specific.
>
> Adding Simon. Simon, which were you thinking?
>
> ~Craig
>
> On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 10:06 PM, Haidl, Michael <michael.haidl at uni-muenster.de <mailto:michael.haidl at uni-muenster.de>> wrote:
> Hi Craig,
>
> thanks for digging into this. So InstCombine is the wrong place for
> fixing PR34474. Can you give me a hint where such an optimization should
> go into CodeGen? I am not really familiar with stuff that happens after
> the MidLevel.
>
> Cheers,
> Michael
>
> Am 13.09.2017 um 19:21 schrieb Craig Topper:
> > And that is less instructions. So from InstCombine's perspective the
> > multiply is the correct answer. I think this transformation is better
> > left to codegen where we know whether multiply or shift is truly better.
> >
> > ~Craig
> >
> > On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 10:18 AM, Craig Topper <craig.topper at gmail.com <mailto:craig.topper at gmail.com>
> > <mailto:craig.topper at gmail.com <mailto:craig.topper at gmail.com>>> wrote:
> >
> > There is in fact a transform out there somewhere that reverses yours.
> >
> > define i64 @foo(i64 %a) {
> > %b = shl i64 %a, 5
> > %c = add i64 %b, %a
> > ret i64 %c
> > }
> >
> > becomes
> >
> > define i64 @foo(i64 %a) {
> >
> > %c = mul i64 %a, 33
> >
> > ret i64 %c
> >
> > }
> >
> >
> > ~Craig
> >
> > On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 10:11 AM, Craig Topper
> > <craig.topper at gmail.com <mailto:craig.topper at gmail.com> <mailto:craig.topper at gmail.com <mailto:craig.topper at gmail.com>>> wrote:
> >
> > Your code seems fine. InstCombine can infinite loop if some
> > other transform is reversing your transform. Can you send the
> > whole patch and a test case?
> >
> > ~Craig
> >
> > On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 10:01 AM, Haidl, Michael via llvm-dev
> > <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>>> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > I am working on PR34474 and try to add a new optimization to
> > InstCombine. Like in other parts of the visitMul function I
> > add a Shl
> > through the IR builder and create a new BinaryOp which I
> > return from
> > visitMul. If I understand correctly the new BinaryOp
> > returned from
> > visitMul should replace the original Instruction in the
> > Worklist.
> > However, I end up in an infinite loop and the Instruction I
> > try to
> > replace gets scheduled again and again. What is wrong in my
> > code?
> >
> > // Replace X * (2^C+/-1) with (X << C) -/+ X
> > APInt Plus1 = *IVal + 1;
> > APInt Minus1 = *IVal - 1;
> > int isPow2 = Plus1.isPowerOf2() ? 1 : Minus1.isPowerOf2() ?
> > -1 : 0;
> >
> > if (isPow2) {
> > APInt &Pow2 = isPow2 > 0 ? Plus1 : Minus1;
> > Value *Shl = Builder.CreateShl(Op0, Pow2.logBase2());
> > return BinaryOperator::Create(isPow2 > 0 ?
> > BinaryOperator::Sub :
> > BinaryOperator::Add, Shl, Op0);
> > }
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Michael
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20170916/791e22a1/attachment.html>
More information about the llvm-dev
mailing list