[InstCombine] Add exact flags for ext idiom `shr (shl X, Y), Y` (#72483)

This patch adds exact flags for sext/zext idiom `shr (shl X, Y), Y`.
Alive2: https://alive2.llvm.org/ce/z/xYFpfB

We can g

[InstCombine] Add exact flags for ext idiom `shr (shl X, Y), Y` (#72483)

This patch adds exact flags for sext/zext idiom `shr (shl X, Y), Y`.
Alive2: https://alive2.llvm.org/ce/z/xYFpfB

We can generalize it to handle pattern `shr (shl X, Y), Z` with `Y u>=
Z` (e.g., non-splat vectors). But I don't think it's worth the effort.

This missed optimization is discovered with the help of
https://github.com/AliveToolkit/alive2/pull/962.

show more ...

[InstCombine] Infer nneg flag from shift users (#71947)

This patch sets `nneg` flag when the zext is only used by a shift.

Alive2: https://alive2.llvm.org/ce/z/h3xKjP
Compile-time impact:
https

[InstCombine] Infer nneg flag from shift users (#71947)

This patch sets `nneg` flag when the zext is only used by a shift.

Alive2: https://alive2.llvm.org/ce/z/h3xKjP
Compile-time impact:
https://llvm-compile-time-tracker.com/compare.php?from=bd611264993f64decbce178d460caf1d1cb05f59&to=26bc473b239010bb24ff1bc39d58b42ecbbc4730&stat=instructions:u

This is an alternative to #71906.

show more ...

[InstCombine] Sink instructions with multiple users in a successor block.

This patch tries to sink instructions when they are only used in a successor block.

This is a further enhancement patch bas

[InstCombine] Sink instructions with multiple users in a successor block.

This patch tries to sink instructions when they are only used in a successor block.

This is a further enhancement patch based on Anna's commit:
D109700, which allows sinking an instruction having multiple uses in a single user.

In this patch, sink instructions with multiple users in a single successor block will be supported.
It could fix a known issue from rust:
https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/51346#issuecomment-394443610

Reviewed By: nikic, reames

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D121585

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] use redirect of input file in regression tests; NFC

This is a repeat of 1880092722 from 2009. We should have less risk
of hitting bugs at this point because we auto-generate positive C

[InstCombine] use redirect of input file in regression tests; NFC

This is a repeat of 1880092722 from 2009. We should have less risk
of hitting bugs at this point because we auto-generate positive CHECK
lines only, but this makes things consistent.

Copying the original commit msg:
"Change tests from "opt %s" to "opt < %s" so that opt doesn't see the
input filename so that opt doesn't print the input filename in the
output so that grep lines in the tests don't unintentionally match
strings in the input filename."

show more ...

[InstCombine] Simplify shift-by-sext to shift-by-zext

Summary:
This is valid for any `sext` bitwidth pair:
```
Processing /tmp/opt.ll..

----------------------------------------
%signed = sext %y

[InstCombine] Simplify shift-by-sext to shift-by-zext

Summary:
This is valid for any `sext` bitwidth pair:
```
Processing /tmp/opt.ll..

----------------------------------------
%signed = sext %y
%r = shl %x, %signed
ret %r
=>
%unsigned = zext %y
%r = shl %x, %unsigned
ret %r
%signed = sext %y

Done: 2016
Optimization is correct!
```

(This isn't so for funnel shifts, there it's illegal for e.g. i6->i7.)

Main motivation is the C++ semantics:
```
int shl(int a, char b) {
return a << b;
}
```
ends as
```
%3 = sext i8 %1 to i32
%4 = shl i32 %0, %3
```
https://godbolt.org/z/0jgqUq
which is, as this shows, too pessimistic.

There is another problem here - we can only do the fold
if sext is one-use. But we can trivially have cases
where several shifts have the same sext shift amount.
This should be resolved, later.

Reviewers: spatel, nikic, RKSimon

Reviewed By: spatel

Subscribers: efriedma, hiraditya, nlopes, llvm-commits

Tags: #llvm

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D68103

llvm-svn: 373106

show more ...

[NFC][InstCombine] Revisit shift-by-signext tests

llvm-svn: 373055

[InstCombine][NFC] Add tests for shift-by-signext

llvm-svn: 373013