[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 ...

[IR] Remove support for icmp and fcmp constant expressions (#93038)

Remove support for the icmp and fcmp constant expressions.

This is part of:
https://discourse.llvm.org/t/rfc-remove-most-const

[IR] Remove support for icmp and fcmp constant expressions (#93038)

Remove support for the icmp and fcmp constant expressions.

This is part of:
https://discourse.llvm.org/t/rfc-remove-most-constant-expressions/63179

As usual, many of the updated tests will no longer test what they were
originally intended to -- this is hard to preserve when constant
expressions get removed, and in many cases just impossible as the
existence of a specific kind of constant expression was the cause of the
issue in the first place.

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 ...

[IR] Remove zext and sext constant expressions (#71040)

Remove support for zext and sext constant expressions. All places
creating them have been removed beforehand, so this just removes the
APIs

[IR] Remove zext and sext constant expressions (#71040)

Remove support for zext and sext constant expressions. All places
creating them have been removed beforehand, so this just removes the
APIs and uses of these constant expressions in tests.

There is some additional cleanup that can be done on top of this, e.g.
we can remove the ZExtInst vs ZExtOperator footgun.

This is part of
https://discourse.llvm.org/t/rfc-remove-most-constant-expressions/63179.

show more ...

[Tests] Remove some and/or constant expressions in tests (NFC)

In preparation for their removal in D158081.

[InstCombine] Don't remove non-terminator unreachable markers

Even if the value happens to be undef, we should preserve these so
they get turned into an unreachable terminator later.

[KnownBits] Return zero instead of unknown for always poison shifts

For always poison shifts, any KnownBits return value is valid.
Currently we return unknown, but returning zero is generally more
p

[KnownBits] Return zero instead of unknown for always poison shifts

For always poison shifts, any KnownBits return value is valid.
Currently we return unknown, but returning zero is generally more
profitable. We had some code in ValueTracking that tried to do this,
but was actually dead code.

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D150648

show more ...

[KnownBits] Make shl/lshr/ashr implementations optimal

The implementations for shifts were suboptimal in the case where
the max shift amount was >= bitwidth. In that case we should still
use the usu

[KnownBits] Make shl/lshr/ashr implementations optimal

The implementations for shifts were suboptimal in the case where
the max shift amount was >= bitwidth. In that case we should still
use the usual code clamped to BitWidth-1 rather than just giving up
entirely.

Additionally, there was an implementation bug where the known zero
bits for the individual shift amounts were not set in the shl/lshr
implementations. I think after these changes, we'll be able to drop
some of the code in ValueTracking which *also* evaluates all possible
shift amounts and has been papering over this issue.

For the "all poison" case I've opted to return an unknown value for
now. It would be better to return zero, but this has fairly
substantial test fallout, so I figured it's best to not mix it into
this change. (The "correct" return value would be a conflict, but
given that a lot of our APIs assert conflict-freedom, that's probably
not the best idea to actually return.)

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D150587

show more ...

[test][InstCombine] Update some test cases to use opaque pointers

These tests cases were converted using the script at
https://gist.github.com/nikic/98357b71fd67756b0f064c9517b62a34

Differential Re

[test][InstCombine] Update some test cases to use opaque pointers

These tests cases were converted using the script at
https://gist.github.com/nikic/98357b71fd67756b0f064c9517b62a34

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D135094

show more ...

[ConstExpr] Don't create div/rem expressions

This removes creation of udiv/sdiv/urem/srem constant expressions,
in preparation for their removal. I've added a
ConstantExpr::isDesirableBinOp() predic

[ConstExpr] Don't create div/rem expressions

This removes creation of udiv/sdiv/urem/srem constant expressions,
in preparation for their removal. I've added a
ConstantExpr::isDesirableBinOp() predicate to determine whether
an expression should be created for a certain operator.

With this patch, div/rem expressions can still be created through
explicit IR/bitcode, forbidding them entirely will be the next step.

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D128820

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] isFreeToInvert(): constant expressions aren't free to invert (PR50370)

This fixes https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=50370,
which reports a yet another endless combine loop,
this on

[InstCombine] isFreeToInvert(): constant expressions aren't free to invert (PR50370)

This fixes https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=50370,
which reports a yet another endless combine loop,
this one regressed from 554b1bced325a8d860ad00bd59020d66d01c95f8,
which fixed yet another endless combine loop (PR50308)

This code had fallen into the very typical pitfall of forgetting
that constant expressions exist, and they aren't free to invert,
because the `not` won't be absorbed by the "constant",
but will remain a (constant) expression...

show more ...

[InstCombine] ~(C + X) --> ~C - X (PR50308)

We can not rely on (C+X)-->(X+C) already happening,
because we might not have visited that `add` yet.
The added testcase would get stuck in an endless com

[InstCombine] ~(C + X) --> ~C - X (PR50308)

We can not rely on (C+X)-->(X+C) already happening,
because we might not have visited that `add` yet.
The added testcase would get stuck in an endless combine loop.

show more ...

[InstCombine] ~(~X + Y) -> X - Y

Proof:
https://alive2.llvm.org/ce/z/4xharr

Solves PR47051

Reviewed By: nikic

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D85593

[Tests] Precommit tests for D85593