search for: instcombineselect

...eCasts::transformZExtICmp) > { > return x>-1 ? 1 : 0; > } > > define i16 @testExtendSignBit_1(i16 %x) { > entry: > %x.lobit = lshr i16 %x, 15 > %x.lobit.not = xor i16 %x.lobit, 1 > ret i16 %x.lobit.not > } > > > int testShiftAnd_1( int x ) // 132 (InstCombineSelect foldSelectICmpAnd) > { > return x<0 ? 2 : 0; > } > > define i16 @testShiftAnd_1(i16 %x) { > entry: > %0 = lshr i16 %x, 14 > %1 = and i16 %0, 2 > ret i16 %1 > } > > > int foldSelectICmpAndOr( int x, int y ) // 600 (InstCombineSelect > foldSelec...

...n of the community again to make sure I am on the > right track. > > My current concrete proposal is to add a command line option (boolean) > that I would name “enable-shift-relaxation” or just “relax-shifts”. This > option would act in several places in InstCombineCasts and in > InstCombineSelect with the described effects. > > I'm not really sold on this part, for the reasons previously discussed. > > This is only going to avoid creating such shifts, in passes that will > be adjusted. > This will not completely ban such shifts, meaning they still can exist. > Which...

...y as it is today if not explicitly enabled. What this option would need to do in practice is really easy and straightforward. Just bypassing (avoiding) certain transformations that might be considered harmful for targets benefiting from it. I performed some simple tests, specially directed at the InstCombineSelect transformations, and I found them to work great and generating greatly improved code for both the MSP430 and AVR targets. Now, I am aware that this proposal might come a bit unexpected and even regarded as inelegant or undesirable, but maybe after some careful balancing of pros and cons, it is jus...

...to the consideration of the community again to make sure I am on the right track. > > My current concrete proposal is to add a command line option (boolean) that I would name “enable-shift-relaxation” or just “relax-shifts”. This option would act in several places in InstCombineCasts and in InstCombineSelect with the described effects. I'm not really sold on this part, for the reasons previously discussed. This is only going to avoid creating such shifts, in passes that will be adjusted. This will not completely ban such shifts, meaning they still can exist. Which means this will only partially pr...

Sure. David, what do you think about merging this to 3.9? Sanjay: are you saying I'd just apply that diff to InstructionSimplify.cpp, not InstCombineSelect.cpp? On Fri, Jul 22, 2016 at 7:08 AM, Sanjay Patel <spatel at rotateright.com> wrote: > Hi Hans - > > Yes, I think this is a good patch for 3.9 (cc'ing David Majnemer as code > owner). The functional change was r276209. I made an NFC refactoring in > InstSimplify at r27591...

David, Sanjay: ping? On Mon, Jul 25, 2016 at 11:07 AM, Hans Wennborg <hans at chromium.org> wrote: > Sure. David, what do you think about merging this to 3.9? > > Sanjay: are you saying I'd just apply that diff to > InstructionSimplify.cpp, not InstCombineSelect.cpp? > > On Fri, Jul 22, 2016 at 7:08 AM, Sanjay Patel <spatel at rotateright.com> wrote: >> Hi Hans - >> >> Yes, I think this is a good patch for 3.9 (cc'ing David Majnemer as code >> owner). The functional change was r276209. I made an NFC refactoring in &g...

...t; > On Mon, Jul 25, 2016 at 11:07 AM, Hans Wennborg <hans at chromium.org > <javascript:;>> wrote: > > Sure. David, what do you think about merging this to 3.9? > > > > Sanjay: are you saying I'd just apply that diff to > > InstructionSimplify.cpp, not InstCombineSelect.cpp? > > > > On Fri, Jul 22, 2016 at 7:08 AM, Sanjay Patel <spatel at rotateright.com > <javascript:;>> wrote: > >> Hi Hans - > >> > >> Yes, I think this is a good patch for 3.9 (cc'ing David Majnemer as code > >> owner). The functi...

...nction names start with a lower case letter ; NFC o *edit*: llvm-revision.src/llvm/trunk/include/llvm/IR/IRBuilder.h o *edit*: llvm-revision.src/llvm/trunk/lib/Transforms/InstCombine/InstCombineMulDivRem.cpp o *edit*: llvm-revision.src/llvm/trunk/lib/Transforms/InstCombine/InstCombineSelect.cpp o *edit*: llvm-revision.src/llvm/trunk/lib/Transforms/Utils/LoopUtils.cpp o *edit*: llvm-revision.src/llvm/trunk/lib/Transforms/Utils/SimplifyLibCalls.cpp o *edit*: llvm-revision.src/llvm/trunk/lib/Transforms/Vectorize/SLPVectorizer.cpp o *edit*: llvm-re...

Sanjay: let me know if this is something that will apply to 3.9. Thanks, Hans On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 5:59 PM, Sanjay Patel via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Quick update - the bug existed before I refactored that chunk in > InstSimplify with: > https://reviews.llvm.org/rL275911 > > In fact, as discussed in https://reviews.llvm.org/D22537 - because we have a

...RK/LLVM_OBJ/lib/Target/X86/InstPrinter' make[4]: Entering directory '/home/NIKHILREDDY/WORK/LLVM_OBJ/lib/Target/X86/AsmParser' llvm[4]: Compiling X86AsmInstrumentation.cpp for Release+Asserts build llvm[3]: Compiling MergedLoadStoreMotion.cpp for Release+Asserts build llvm[3]: Compiling InstCombineSelect.cpp for Release+Asserts build llvm[3]: Compiling ErlangGCPrinter.cpp for Release+Asserts build llvm[3]: Compiling NaryReassociate.cpp for Release+Asserts build llvm[4]: Compiling X86AsmParser.cpp for Release+Asserts build llvm[3]: Compiling OcamlGCPrinter.cpp for Release+Asserts build llvm[3]: Comp...