offset accumulation to use a boring APInt instead of ConstantExprs.
I didn't go all the way to an 'int64_t' because I wanted APInt to handle
any magic required to properly wrap the arithmetic when the pointer
width is <64 bits. If there is a significant penalty from using APInt
here, first off WTF, and secondly let me know and I'll do the math by
hand.
I've left one layer still operating w/ ConstantExpr because it makes the
interface quite a bit simpler, and that one isn't iterative so has much
lower cost.
I suppose this may potentially speed up some strang compilation
situations, but I don't really expect much. It should have no functional
impact either way.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@152590 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
Typically instcombine has handled this, but pointer differences show up
in several contexts where we would like to get constant folding, and
cannot afford to run instcombine. Specifically, I'm working on improving
the constant folding of arguments used in inline cost analysis with
instsimplify.
Doing this in instsimplify implies some algorithm changes. We have to
handle multiple layers of all-constant GEPs because instsimplify cannot
fold them into a single GEP the way instcombine can. Also, we're only
interested in all-constant GEPs. The result is that this doesn't really
replace the instcombine logic, it's just complimentary and focused on
constant folding.
Reviewed on IRC by Benjamin Kramer.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@152555 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
The 'CmpInst::isFalseWhenEqual' function returns 'false' for values other than
simply equality. For instance, it returns 'false' for <= or >=. This isn't the
correct behavior for this transformation, which is checking for strict equality
and non-equality. It was causing the gcc.c-torture/execute/frame-address.c test
to fail because it would completely (and incorrectly) optimize a whole function
into a 'ret i32 0'.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@152497 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
a common collection of methods on Value, and share their implementation.
We had two variations in two different places already, and I need the
third variation for inline cost estimation.
Reviewed by Duncan Sands on IRC, but further comments here welcome.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@152490 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
by using llvm::isIdentifiedObject. Also teach it to handle GEPs that have
the same base pointer and constant operands. Fixes PR11238!
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@151449 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
with the given predicate, it matches any condition and returns the
predicate - d'oh! Original commit message:
The expression icmp eq (select (icmp eq x, 0), 1, x), 0 folds to false.
Spotted by my super-optimizer in 186.crafty and 450.soplex. We really
need a proper infrastructure for handling generalizations of this kind
of thing (which occur a lot), however this case is so simple that I decided
to go ahead and implement it directly.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@143318 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
Spotted by my super-optimizer in 186.crafty and 450.soplex. We really
need a proper infrastructure for handling generalizations of this kind
of thing (which occur a lot), however this case is so simple that I decided
to go ahead and implement it directly.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@143214 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
using BinaryOperator (which only works for instructions) when it should have
been a cast to OverflowingBinaryOperator (which also works for constants).
While there, correct a few other dubious looking uses of BinaryOperator.
Thanks to Chad Rosier for the testcase. Original commit message:
My super-optimizer noticed that we weren't folding this expression to
true: (x *nsw x) sgt 0, where x = (y | 1). This occurs in 464.h264ref.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@143125 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
often expressed as "x >= y ? x : y", there is a good chance we can extract
the existing "x >= y" from it and use that as a replacement for "max(x,y)==x".
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@131049 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
but according to my super-optimizer there are only two missed simplifications
of -instsimplify kind when compiling bzip2, and this is one of them. It amuses
me to have bzip2 be perfectly optimized as far as instsimplify goes!
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@130840 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
max(a,b) >= a -> true. According to my super-optimizer, these are
by far the most common simplifications (of the -instsimplify kind)
that occur in the testsuite and aren't caught by -std-compile-opts.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@130780 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
This automagically provides a transform noticed by my super-optimizer
as occurring quite often: "rem x, (select cond, x, 1)" -> 0.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@130694 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
