[LLVM][IR] Use splat syntax when printing Constant[Data]Vector. (#112548)

[InstCombine] Remove some of the complexity-based canonicalization (#91185)

The idea behind this canonicalization is that it allows us to handle less
patterns, because we know that some will be can

[InstCombine] Remove some of the complexity-based canonicalization (#91185)

The idea behind this canonicalization is that it allows us to handle less
patterns, because we know that some will be canonicalized away. This is
indeed very useful to e.g. know that constants are always on the right.

However, this is only useful if the canonicalization is actually
reliable. This is the case for constants, but not for arguments: Moving
these to the right makes it look like the "more complex" expression is
guaranteed to be on the left, but this is not actually the case in
practice. It fails as soon as you replace the argument with another
instruction.

The end result is that it looks like things correctly work in tests,
while they actually don't. We use the "thwart complexity-based
canonicalization" trick to handle this in tests, but it's often a
challenge for new contributors to get this right, and based on the
regressions this PR originally exposed, we clearly don't get this right
in many cases.

For this reason, I think that it's better to remove this complexity
canonicalization. It will make it much easier to write tests for
commuted cases and make sure that they are handled.

show more ...

[PatternMatch] Do not accept undef elements in m_AllOnes() and friends (#88217)

Change all the cstval_pred_ty based PatternMatch helpers (things like
m_AllOnes and m_Zero) to only allow poison elem

[PatternMatch] Do not accept undef elements in m_AllOnes() and friends (#88217)

Change all the cstval_pred_ty based PatternMatch helpers (things like
m_AllOnes and m_Zero) to only allow poison elements inside vector
splats, not undef elements.

Historically, we used to represent non-demanded elements in vectors
using undef. Nowadays, we use poison instead. As such, I believe that
support for undef in vector splats is no longer useful.

At the same time, while poison splat elements are pretty much always
safe to ignore, this is not generally the case for undef elements. We
have existing miscompiles in our tests due to this (see the
masked-merge-*.ll tests changed here) and it's easy to miss such cases
in the future, now that we write tests using poison instead of undef
elements.

I think overall, keeping support for undef elements no longer makes
sense, and we should drop it. Once this is done consistently, I think we
may also consider allowing poison in m_APInt by default, as doing that
change is much less risky than doing the same with undef.

This change involves a substantial amount of test changes. For most
tests, I've just replaced undef with poison, as I don't think there is
value in retaining both. For some tests (where the distinction between
undef and poison is important), I've duplicated tests.

show more ...

[test] Use -passes=instcombine instead of -instcombine in lots of tests. NFC

Another step moving away from the deprecated syntax of specifying
pass pipeline in opt.

Differential Revision: https://r

[test] Use -passes=instcombine instead of -instcombine in lots of tests. NFC

Another step moving away from the deprecated syntax of specifying
pass pipeline in opt.

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D119081

show more ...

[InstCombine] Hoist xor-by-constant from xor-by-value

This is one of the deficiencies that can be observed in
https://godbolt.org/z/YPczsG after D91038 patch set.

This exposed two missing folds, on

[InstCombine] Hoist xor-by-constant from xor-by-value

This is one of the deficiencies that can be observed in
https://godbolt.org/z/YPczsG after D91038 patch set.

This exposed two missing folds, one was fixed by the previous commit,
another one is `(A ^ B) | ~(A ^ B) --> -1` / `(A ^ B) & ~(A ^ B) --> 0`.

`-early-cse` will catch it: https://godbolt.org/z/4n1T1v,
but isn't meaningful to fix it in InstCombine,
because we'd need to essentially do our own CSE,
and we can't even rely on `Instruction::isIdenticalTo()`,
because there are no guarantees that the order of operands matches.
So let's just accept it as a loss.

show more ...

Revert "Temporarily Revert "Add basic loop fusion pass.""

The reversion apparently deleted the test/Transforms directory.

Will be re-reverting again.

llvm-svn: 358552

[InstCombine] Canonicalize variable mask in masked merge

Summary:
Masked merge has a pattern of: `((x ^ y) & M) ^ y`.
But, there is no difference between `((x ^ y) & M) ^ y` and `((x ^ y) & ~M) ^ x`

[InstCombine] Canonicalize variable mask in masked merge

Summary:
Masked merge has a pattern of: `((x ^ y) & M) ^ y`.
But, there is no difference between `((x ^ y) & M) ^ y` and `((x ^ y) & ~M) ^ x`,
We should canonicalize the pattern to non-inverted mask.

https://rise4fun.com/Alive/Yol

Reviewers: spatel, craig.topper

Reviewed By: spatel

Subscribers: llvm-commits

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D45664

llvm-svn: 331112

show more ...

[InstCombine][NFC] Add tests for variable mask canonicalization in masked merge

Summary:
Masked merge has a pattern of: `((x ^ y) & M) ^ y`.
But, there is no difference between `((x ^ y) & M) ^ y` a

[InstCombine][NFC] Add tests for variable mask canonicalization in masked merge

Summary:
Masked merge has a pattern of: `((x ^ y) & M) ^ y`.
But, there is no difference between `((x ^ y) & M) ^ y` and `((x ^ y) & ~M) ^ x`,
We should canonicalize the pattern to non-inverted mask.

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D45663

llvm-svn: 331111

show more ...