Skip to content

[DirectX] Remove llvm.assume intrinsic #166697

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Nov 6, 2025
+13 −13
Merged

[DirectX] Remove llvm.assume intrinsic #166697

Show file tree
Hide file tree
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
1 commit
Select commit
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
4 changes: 4 additions & 0 deletions llvm/lib/Target/DirectX/DXILIntrinsicExpansion.cpp
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -197,6 +197,7 @@ static Value *expand16BitIsNormal(CallInst *Orig) {

static bool isIntrinsicExpansion(Function &F) {
switch (F.getIntrinsicID()) {
case Intrinsic::assume:
case Intrinsic::abs:
case Intrinsic::atan2:
case Intrinsic::exp:
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -988,6 +989,9 @@ static bool expandIntrinsic(Function &F, CallInst *Orig) {
case Intrinsic::abs:
Result = expandAbs(Orig);
break;
case Intrinsic::assume:
Orig->eraseFromParent();
return true;
case Intrinsic::atan2:
Result = expandAtan2Intrinsic(Orig);
break;
Expand Down
2 changes: 0 additions & 2 deletions llvm/lib/Target/DirectX/DXILOpLowering.cpp
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -904,8 +904,6 @@ class OpLowerer {
case Intrinsic::dx_resource_casthandle:
// NOTE: llvm.dbg.value is supported as is in DXIL.
case Intrinsic::dbg_value:
// NOTE: llvm.assume is supported as is in DXIL.
case Intrinsic::assume:
case Intrinsic::not_intrinsic:
if (F.use_empty())
F.eraseFromParent();
Expand Down
9 changes: 9 additions & 0 deletions llvm/test/CodeGen/DirectX/llvm_assume.ll
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
@@ -0,0 +1,9 @@
; RUN: opt -S -dxil-intrinsic-expansion -mtriple=dxil-pc-shadermodel6.3-library %s | FileCheck %s

define void @test_llvm_assume(i1 %0) {
; CHECK-LABEL: test_llvm_assume
; CHECK-NEXT: ret void
Copy link
Contributor

@spall spall Nov 6, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

nit: would CHECK-NOT llvm.assume be more clear?

Copy link
Member Author

@farzonl farzonl Nov 6, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I was thinking next would be better in the event someone comes along later and makes a transformation for llvm.assume. A transformation should break this test. Causing someone to come here and consider why they are doing a transformation but check-not would pass a transformation.

tail call void @llvm.assume(i1 %0)
ret void
}

11 changes: 0 additions & 11 deletions llvm/test/tools/dxil-dis/llvm_assume.ll
View file
Open in desktop

This file was deleted.