[InstCombine] Fix the correctness of missing check reassoc attribute #71277
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
|
@llvm/pr-subscribers-llvm-transforms @llvm/pr-subscribers-llvm-ir Author: Allen (vfdff) ChangesThe potential issue is based on the discussion of PR69998 . The Transfrom is reasonable The IR node may have different attribute within a function if you're doing LTO. Patch is 36.16 KiB, truncated to 20.00 KiB below, full version: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/71277.diff 10 Files Affected:
diff --git a/llvm/include/llvm/IR/Instruction.h b/llvm/include/llvm/IR/Instruction.h
index b5ccdf020a4c006..e166cc0e43fda9b 100644
--- a/llvm/include/llvm/IR/Instruction.h
+++ b/llvm/include/llvm/IR/Instruction.h
@@ -416,6 +416,10 @@ class Instruction : public User,
/// instruction.
void setNonNeg(bool b = true);
+ /// It checks all of its operands have attribute Reassoc if they are
+ /// instruction.
+ bool hasAllowReassocOfAllOperand() const LLVM_READONLY;
+
/// Determine whether the no unsigned wrap flag is set.
bool hasNoUnsignedWrap() const LLVM_READONLY;
diff --git a/llvm/lib/IR/Instruction.cpp b/llvm/lib/IR/Instruction.cpp
index 1b3c03348f41a70..895df100f6ff46d 100644
--- a/llvm/lib/IR/Instruction.cpp
+++ b/llvm/lib/IR/Instruction.cpp
@@ -177,6 +177,15 @@ void Instruction::setNonNeg(bool b) {
(b * PossiblyNonNegInst::NonNeg);
}
+bool Instruction::hasAllowReassocOfAllOperand() const {
+ return all_of(operands(), [](Value *V) {
+ if (!isa<IntrinsicInst>(V))
+ return true;
+ IntrinsicInst *OptI = cast<IntrinsicInst>(V);
+ return OptI->hasAllowReassoc();
+ });
+}
+
bool Instruction::hasNoUnsignedWrap() const {
return cast<OverflowingBinaryOperator>(this)->hasNoUnsignedWrap();
}
diff --git a/llvm/lib/Transforms/InstCombine/InstCombineInternal.h b/llvm/lib/Transforms/InstCombine/InstCombineInternal.h
index 34b10220ec88aba..68a8fb676d8d909 100644
--- a/llvm/lib/Transforms/InstCombine/InstCombineInternal.h
+++ b/llvm/lib/Transforms/InstCombine/InstCombineInternal.h
@@ -98,6 +98,7 @@ class LLVM_LIBRARY_VISIBILITY InstCombinerImpl final
Instruction *visitSub(BinaryOperator &I);
Instruction *visitFSub(BinaryOperator &I);
Instruction *visitMul(BinaryOperator &I);
+ Instruction *foldFMulReassoc(BinaryOperator &I);
Instruction *visitFMul(BinaryOperator &I);
Instruction *visitURem(BinaryOperator &I);
Instruction *visitSRem(BinaryOperator &I);
diff --git a/llvm/lib/Transforms/InstCombine/InstCombineMulDivRem.cpp b/llvm/lib/Transforms/InstCombine/InstCombineMulDivRem.cpp
index bc784390c23be49..d2ac7abc42b9ce6 100644
--- a/llvm/lib/Transforms/InstCombine/InstCombineMulDivRem.cpp
+++ b/llvm/lib/Transforms/InstCombine/InstCombineMulDivRem.cpp
@@ -560,6 +560,180 @@ Instruction *InstCombinerImpl::foldFPSignBitOps(BinaryOperator &I) {
return nullptr;
}
+Instruction *InstCombinerImpl::foldFMulReassoc(BinaryOperator &I) {
+ Value *Op0 = I.getOperand(0);
+ Value *Op1 = I.getOperand(1);
+ Value *X, *Y;
+ Constant *C;
+
+ // Reassociate constant RHS with another constant to form constant
+ // expression.
+ if (match(Op1, m_Constant(C)) && C->isFiniteNonZeroFP()) {
+ Constant *C1;
+ if (match(Op0, m_OneUse(m_FDiv(m_Constant(C1), m_Value(X))))) {
+ // (C1 / X) * C --> (C * C1) / X
+ Constant *CC1 =
+ ConstantFoldBinaryOpOperands(Instruction::FMul, C, C1, DL);
+ if (CC1 && CC1->isNormalFP())
+ return BinaryOperator::CreateFDivFMF(CC1, X, &I);
+ }
+ if (match(Op0, m_FDiv(m_Value(X), m_Constant(C1)))) {
+ // (X / C1) * C --> X * (C / C1)
+ Constant *CDivC1 =
+ ConstantFoldBinaryOpOperands(Instruction::FDiv, C, C1, DL);
+ if (CDivC1 && CDivC1->isNormalFP())
+ return BinaryOperator::CreateFMulFMF(X, CDivC1, &I);
+
+ // If the constant was a denormal, try reassociating differently.
+ // (X / C1) * C --> X / (C1 / C)
+ Constant *C1DivC =
+ ConstantFoldBinaryOpOperands(Instruction::FDiv, C1, C, DL);
+ if (C1DivC && Op0->hasOneUse() && C1DivC->isNormalFP())
+ return BinaryOperator::CreateFDivFMF(X, C1DivC, &I);
+ }
+
+ // We do not need to match 'fadd C, X' and 'fsub X, C' because they are
+ // canonicalized to 'fadd X, C'. Distributing the multiply may allow
+ // further folds and (X * C) + C2 is 'fma'.
+ if (match(Op0, m_OneUse(m_FAdd(m_Value(X), m_Constant(C1))))) {
+ // (X + C1) * C --> (X * C) + (C * C1)
+ if (Constant *CC1 =
+ ConstantFoldBinaryOpOperands(Instruction::FMul, C, C1, DL)) {
+ Value *XC = Builder.CreateFMulFMF(X, C, &I);
+ return BinaryOperator::CreateFAddFMF(XC, CC1, &I);
+ }
+ }
+ if (match(Op0, m_OneUse(m_FSub(m_Constant(C1), m_Value(X))))) {
+ // (C1 - X) * C --> (C * C1) - (X * C)
+ if (Constant *CC1 =
+ ConstantFoldBinaryOpOperands(Instruction::FMul, C, C1, DL)) {
+ Value *XC = Builder.CreateFMulFMF(X, C, &I);
+ return BinaryOperator::CreateFSubFMF(CC1, XC, &I);
+ }
+ }
+ }
+
+ Value *Z;
+ if (match(&I,
+ m_c_FMul(m_OneUse(m_FDiv(m_Value(X), m_Value(Y))), m_Value(Z)))) {
+ // Sink division: (X / Y) * Z --> (X * Z) / Y
+ Value *NewFMul = Builder.CreateFMulFMF(X, Z, &I);
+ return BinaryOperator::CreateFDivFMF(NewFMul, Y, &I);
+ }
+
+ // sqrt(X) * sqrt(Y) -> sqrt(X * Y)
+ // nnan disallows the possibility of returning a number if both operands are
+ // negative (in that case, we should return NaN).
+ if (I.hasNoNaNs() && match(Op0, m_OneUse(m_Sqrt(m_Value(X)))) &&
+ match(Op1, m_OneUse(m_Sqrt(m_Value(Y))))) {
+ Value *XY = Builder.CreateFMulFMF(X, Y, &I);
+ Value *Sqrt = Builder.CreateUnaryIntrinsic(Intrinsic::sqrt, XY, &I);
+ return replaceInstUsesWith(I, Sqrt);
+ }
+
+ // The following transforms are done irrespective of the number of uses
+ // for the expression "1.0/sqrt(X)".
+ // 1) 1.0/sqrt(X) * X -> X/sqrt(X)
+ // 2) X * 1.0/sqrt(X) -> X/sqrt(X)
+ // We always expect the backend to reduce X/sqrt(X) to sqrt(X), if it
+ // has the necessary (reassoc) fast-math-flags.
+ if (I.hasNoSignedZeros() &&
+ match(Op0, (m_FDiv(m_SpecificFP(1.0), m_Value(Y)))) &&
+ match(Y, m_Sqrt(m_Value(X))) && Op1 == X)
+ return BinaryOperator::CreateFDivFMF(X, Y, &I);
+ if (I.hasNoSignedZeros() &&
+ match(Op1, (m_FDiv(m_SpecificFP(1.0), m_Value(Y)))) &&
+ match(Y, m_Sqrt(m_Value(X))) && Op0 == X)
+ return BinaryOperator::CreateFDivFMF(X, Y, &I);
+
+ // Like the similar transform in instsimplify, this requires 'nsz' because
+ // sqrt(-0.0) = -0.0, and -0.0 * -0.0 does not simplify to -0.0.
+ if (I.hasNoNaNs() && I.hasNoSignedZeros() && Op0 == Op1 && Op0->hasNUses(2)) {
+ // Peek through fdiv to find squaring of square root:
+ // (X / sqrt(Y)) * (X / sqrt(Y)) --> (X * X) / Y
+ if (match(Op0, m_FDiv(m_Value(X), m_Sqrt(m_Value(Y))))) {
+ Value *XX = Builder.CreateFMulFMF(X, X, &I);
+ return BinaryOperator::CreateFDivFMF(XX, Y, &I);
+ }
+ // (sqrt(Y) / X) * (sqrt(Y) / X) --> Y / (X * X)
+ if (match(Op0, m_FDiv(m_Sqrt(m_Value(Y)), m_Value(X)))) {
+ Value *XX = Builder.CreateFMulFMF(X, X, &I);
+ return BinaryOperator::CreateFDivFMF(Y, XX, &I);
+ }
+ }
+
+ // pow(X, Y) * X --> pow(X, Y+1)
+ // X * pow(X, Y) --> pow(X, Y+1)
+ if (match(&I, m_c_FMul(m_OneUse(m_Intrinsic<Intrinsic::pow>(m_Value(X),
+ m_Value(Y))),
+ m_Deferred(X)))) {
+ Value *Y1 = Builder.CreateFAddFMF(Y, ConstantFP::get(I.getType(), 1.0), &I);
+ Value *Pow = Builder.CreateBinaryIntrinsic(Intrinsic::pow, X, Y1, &I);
+ return replaceInstUsesWith(I, Pow);
+ }
+
+ if (I.isOnlyUserOfAnyOperand()) {
+ // pow(X, Y) * pow(X, Z) -> pow(X, Y + Z)
+ if (match(Op0, m_Intrinsic<Intrinsic::pow>(m_Value(X), m_Value(Y))) &&
+ match(Op1, m_Intrinsic<Intrinsic::pow>(m_Specific(X), m_Value(Z)))) {
+ auto *YZ = Builder.CreateFAddFMF(Y, Z, &I);
+ auto *NewPow = Builder.CreateBinaryIntrinsic(Intrinsic::pow, X, YZ, &I);
+ return replaceInstUsesWith(I, NewPow);
+ }
+ // pow(X, Y) * pow(Z, Y) -> pow(X * Z, Y)
+ if (match(Op0, m_Intrinsic<Intrinsic::pow>(m_Value(X), m_Value(Y))) &&
+ match(Op1, m_Intrinsic<Intrinsic::pow>(m_Value(Z), m_Specific(Y)))) {
+ auto *XZ = Builder.CreateFMulFMF(X, Z, &I);
+ auto *NewPow = Builder.CreateBinaryIntrinsic(Intrinsic::pow, XZ, Y, &I);
+ return replaceInstUsesWith(I, NewPow);
+ }
+
+ // powi(x, y) * powi(x, z) -> powi(x, y + z)
+ if (match(Op0, m_Intrinsic<Intrinsic::powi>(m_Value(X), m_Value(Y))) &&
+ match(Op1, m_Intrinsic<Intrinsic::powi>(m_Specific(X), m_Value(Z))) &&
+ Y->getType() == Z->getType()) {
+ auto *YZ = Builder.CreateAdd(Y, Z);
+ auto *NewPow = Builder.CreateIntrinsic(
+ Intrinsic::powi, {X->getType(), YZ->getType()}, {X, YZ}, &I);
+ return replaceInstUsesWith(I, NewPow);
+ }
+
+ // exp(X) * exp(Y) -> exp(X + Y)
+ if (match(Op0, m_Intrinsic<Intrinsic::exp>(m_Value(X))) &&
+ match(Op1, m_Intrinsic<Intrinsic::exp>(m_Value(Y)))) {
+ Value *XY = Builder.CreateFAddFMF(X, Y, &I);
+ Value *Exp = Builder.CreateUnaryIntrinsic(Intrinsic::exp, XY, &I);
+ return replaceInstUsesWith(I, Exp);
+ }
+
+ // exp2(X) * exp2(Y) -> exp2(X + Y)
+ if (match(Op0, m_Intrinsic<Intrinsic::exp2>(m_Value(X))) &&
+ match(Op1, m_Intrinsic<Intrinsic::exp2>(m_Value(Y)))) {
+ Value *XY = Builder.CreateFAddFMF(X, Y, &I);
+ Value *Exp2 = Builder.CreateUnaryIntrinsic(Intrinsic::exp2, XY, &I);
+ return replaceInstUsesWith(I, Exp2);
+ }
+ }
+
+ // (X*Y) * X => (X*X) * Y where Y != X
+ // The purpose is two-fold:
+ // 1) to form a power expression (of X).
+ // 2) potentially shorten the critical path: After transformation, the
+ // latency of the instruction Y is amortized by the expression of X*X,
+ // and therefore Y is in a "less critical" position compared to what it
+ // was before the transformation.
+ if (match(Op0, m_OneUse(m_c_FMul(m_Specific(Op1), m_Value(Y)))) && Op1 != Y) {
+ Value *XX = Builder.CreateFMulFMF(Op1, Op1, &I);
+ return BinaryOperator::CreateFMulFMF(XX, Y, &I);
+ }
+ if (match(Op1, m_OneUse(m_c_FMul(m_Specific(Op0), m_Value(Y)))) && Op0 != Y) {
+ Value *XX = Builder.CreateFMulFMF(Op0, Op0, &I);
+ return BinaryOperator::CreateFMulFMF(XX, Y, &I);
+ }
+
+ return nullptr;
+}
+
Instruction *InstCombinerImpl::visitFMul(BinaryOperator &I) {
if (Value *V = simplifyFMulInst(I.getOperand(0), I.getOperand(1),
I.getFastMathFlags(),
@@ -607,176 +781,9 @@ Instruction *InstCombinerImpl::visitFMul(BinaryOperator &I) {
if (Value *V = SimplifySelectsFeedingBinaryOp(I, Op0, Op1))
return replaceInstUsesWith(I, V);
- if (I.hasAllowReassoc()) {
- // Reassociate constant RHS with another constant to form constant
- // expression.
- if (match(Op1, m_Constant(C)) && C->isFiniteNonZeroFP()) {
- Constant *C1;
- if (match(Op0, m_OneUse(m_FDiv(m_Constant(C1), m_Value(X))))) {
- // (C1 / X) * C --> (C * C1) / X
- Constant *CC1 =
- ConstantFoldBinaryOpOperands(Instruction::FMul, C, C1, DL);
- if (CC1 && CC1->isNormalFP())
- return BinaryOperator::CreateFDivFMF(CC1, X, &I);
- }
- if (match(Op0, m_FDiv(m_Value(X), m_Constant(C1)))) {
- // (X / C1) * C --> X * (C / C1)
- Constant *CDivC1 =
- ConstantFoldBinaryOpOperands(Instruction::FDiv, C, C1, DL);
- if (CDivC1 && CDivC1->isNormalFP())
- return BinaryOperator::CreateFMulFMF(X, CDivC1, &I);
-
- // If the constant was a denormal, try reassociating differently.
- // (X / C1) * C --> X / (C1 / C)
- Constant *C1DivC =
- ConstantFoldBinaryOpOperands(Instruction::FDiv, C1, C, DL);
- if (C1DivC && Op0->hasOneUse() && C1DivC->isNormalFP())
- return BinaryOperator::CreateFDivFMF(X, C1DivC, &I);
- }
-
- // We do not need to match 'fadd C, X' and 'fsub X, C' because they are
- // canonicalized to 'fadd X, C'. Distributing the multiply may allow
- // further folds and (X * C) + C2 is 'fma'.
- if (match(Op0, m_OneUse(m_FAdd(m_Value(X), m_Constant(C1))))) {
- // (X + C1) * C --> (X * C) + (C * C1)
- if (Constant *CC1 = ConstantFoldBinaryOpOperands(
- Instruction::FMul, C, C1, DL)) {
- Value *XC = Builder.CreateFMulFMF(X, C, &I);
- return BinaryOperator::CreateFAddFMF(XC, CC1, &I);
- }
- }
- if (match(Op0, m_OneUse(m_FSub(m_Constant(C1), m_Value(X))))) {
- // (C1 - X) * C --> (C * C1) - (X * C)
- if (Constant *CC1 = ConstantFoldBinaryOpOperands(
- Instruction::FMul, C, C1, DL)) {
- Value *XC = Builder.CreateFMulFMF(X, C, &I);
- return BinaryOperator::CreateFSubFMF(CC1, XC, &I);
- }
- }
- }
-
- Value *Z;
- if (match(&I, m_c_FMul(m_OneUse(m_FDiv(m_Value(X), m_Value(Y))),
- m_Value(Z)))) {
- // Sink division: (X / Y) * Z --> (X * Z) / Y
- Value *NewFMul = Builder.CreateFMulFMF(X, Z, &I);
- return BinaryOperator::CreateFDivFMF(NewFMul, Y, &I);
- }
-
- // sqrt(X) * sqrt(Y) -> sqrt(X * Y)
- // nnan disallows the possibility of returning a number if both operands are
- // negative (in that case, we should return NaN).
- if (I.hasNoNaNs() && match(Op0, m_OneUse(m_Sqrt(m_Value(X)))) &&
- match(Op1, m_OneUse(m_Sqrt(m_Value(Y))))) {
- Value *XY = Builder.CreateFMulFMF(X, Y, &I);
- Value *Sqrt = Builder.CreateUnaryIntrinsic(Intrinsic::sqrt, XY, &I);
- return replaceInstUsesWith(I, Sqrt);
- }
-
- // The following transforms are done irrespective of the number of uses
- // for the expression "1.0/sqrt(X)".
- // 1) 1.0/sqrt(X) * X -> X/sqrt(X)
- // 2) X * 1.0/sqrt(X) -> X/sqrt(X)
- // We always expect the backend to reduce X/sqrt(X) to sqrt(X), if it
- // has the necessary (reassoc) fast-math-flags.
- if (I.hasNoSignedZeros() &&
- match(Op0, (m_FDiv(m_SpecificFP(1.0), m_Value(Y)))) &&
- match(Y, m_Sqrt(m_Value(X))) && Op1 == X)
- return BinaryOperator::CreateFDivFMF(X, Y, &I);
- if (I.hasNoSignedZeros() &&
- match(Op1, (m_FDiv(m_SpecificFP(1.0), m_Value(Y)))) &&
- match(Y, m_Sqrt(m_Value(X))) && Op0 == X)
- return BinaryOperator::CreateFDivFMF(X, Y, &I);
-
- // Like the similar transform in instsimplify, this requires 'nsz' because
- // sqrt(-0.0) = -0.0, and -0.0 * -0.0 does not simplify to -0.0.
- if (I.hasNoNaNs() && I.hasNoSignedZeros() && Op0 == Op1 &&
- Op0->hasNUses(2)) {
- // Peek through fdiv to find squaring of square root:
- // (X / sqrt(Y)) * (X / sqrt(Y)) --> (X * X) / Y
- if (match(Op0, m_FDiv(m_Value(X), m_Sqrt(m_Value(Y))))) {
- Value *XX = Builder.CreateFMulFMF(X, X, &I);
- return BinaryOperator::CreateFDivFMF(XX, Y, &I);
- }
- // (sqrt(Y) / X) * (sqrt(Y) / X) --> Y / (X * X)
- if (match(Op0, m_FDiv(m_Sqrt(m_Value(Y)), m_Value(X)))) {
- Value *XX = Builder.CreateFMulFMF(X, X, &I);
- return BinaryOperator::CreateFDivFMF(Y, XX, &I);
- }
- }
-
- // pow(X, Y) * X --> pow(X, Y+1)
- // X * pow(X, Y) --> pow(X, Y+1)
- if (match(&I, m_c_FMul(m_OneUse(m_Intrinsic<Intrinsic::pow>(m_Value(X),
- m_Value(Y))),
- m_Deferred(X)))) {
- Value *Y1 =
- Builder.CreateFAddFMF(Y, ConstantFP::get(I.getType(), 1.0), &I);
- Value *Pow = Builder.CreateBinaryIntrinsic(Intrinsic::pow, X, Y1, &I);
- return replaceInstUsesWith(I, Pow);
- }
-
- if (I.isOnlyUserOfAnyOperand()) {
- // pow(X, Y) * pow(X, Z) -> pow(X, Y + Z)
- if (match(Op0, m_Intrinsic<Intrinsic::pow>(m_Value(X), m_Value(Y))) &&
- match(Op1, m_Intrinsic<Intrinsic::pow>(m_Specific(X), m_Value(Z)))) {
- auto *YZ = Builder.CreateFAddFMF(Y, Z, &I);
- auto *NewPow = Builder.CreateBinaryIntrinsic(Intrinsic::pow, X, YZ, &I);
- return replaceInstUsesWith(I, NewPow);
- }
- // pow(X, Y) * pow(Z, Y) -> pow(X * Z, Y)
- if (match(Op0, m_Intrinsic<Intrinsic::pow>(m_Value(X), m_Value(Y))) &&
- match(Op1, m_Intrinsic<Intrinsic::pow>(m_Value(Z), m_Specific(Y)))) {
- auto *XZ = Builder.CreateFMulFMF(X, Z, &I);
- auto *NewPow = Builder.CreateBinaryIntrinsic(Intrinsic::pow, XZ, Y, &I);
- return replaceInstUsesWith(I, NewPow);
- }
-
- // powi(x, y) * powi(x, z) -> powi(x, y + z)
- if (match(Op0, m_Intrinsic<Intrinsic::powi>(m_Value(X), m_Value(Y))) &&
- match(Op1, m_Intrinsic<Intrinsic::powi>(m_Specific(X), m_Value(Z))) &&
- Y->getType() == Z->getType()) {
- auto *YZ = Builder.CreateAdd(Y, Z);
- auto *NewPow = Builder.CreateIntrinsic(
- Intrinsic::powi, {X->getType(), YZ->getType()}, {X, YZ}, &I);
- return replaceInstUsesWith(I, NewPow);
- }
-
- // exp(X) * exp(Y) -> exp(X + Y)
- if (match(Op0, m_Intrinsic<Intrinsic::exp>(m_Value(X))) &&
- match(Op1, m_Intrinsic<Intrinsic::exp>(m_Value(Y)))) {
- Value *XY = Builder.CreateFAddFMF(X, Y, &I);
- Value *Exp = Builder.CreateUnaryIntrinsic(Intrinsic::exp, XY, &I);
- return replaceInstUsesWith(I, Exp);
- }
-
- // exp2(X) * exp2(Y) -> exp2(X + Y)
- if (match(Op0, m_Intrinsic<Intrinsic::exp2>(m_Value(X))) &&
- match(Op1, m_Intrinsic<Intrinsic::exp2>(m_Value(Y)))) {
- Value *XY = Builder.CreateFAddFMF(X, Y, &I);
- Value *Exp2 = Builder.CreateUnaryIntrinsic(Intrinsic::exp2, XY, &I);
- return replaceInstUsesWith(I, Exp2);
- }
- }
-
- // (X*Y) * X => (X*X) * Y where Y != X
- // The purpose is two-fold:
- // 1) to form a power expression (of X).
- // 2) potentially shorten the critical path: After transformation, the
- // latency of the instruction Y is amortized by the expression of X*X,
- // and therefore Y is in a "less critical" position compared to what it
- // was before the transformation.
- if (match(Op0, m_OneUse(m_c_FMul(m_Specific(Op1), m_Value(Y)))) &&
- Op1 != Y) {
- Value *XX = Builder.CreateFMulFMF(Op1, Op1, &I);
- return BinaryOperator::CreateFMulFMF(XX, Y, &I);
- }
- if (match(Op1, m_OneUse(m_c_FMul(m_Specific(Op0), m_Value(Y)))) &&
- Op0 != Y) {
- Value *XX = Builder.CreateFMulFMF(Op0, Op0, &I);
- return BinaryOperator::CreateFMulFMF(XX, Y, &I);
- }
- }
+ if (I.hasAllowReassoc() && I.hasAllowReassocOfAllOperand())
+ if (Instruction *FoldedMul = foldFMulReassoc(I))
+ return FoldedMul;
// log2(X * 0.5) * Y = log2(X) * Y - Y
if (I.isFast()) {
diff --git a/llvm/test/Transforms/InstCombine/fmul-exp.ll b/llvm/test/Transforms/InstCombine/fmul-exp.ll
index 62d22b8c085c267..16066b5d5bc5168 100644
--- a/llvm/test/Transforms/InstCombine/fmul-exp.ll
+++ b/llvm/test/Transforms/InstCombine/fmul-exp.ll
@@ -21,14 +21,14 @@ define double @exp_a_exp_b(double %a, double %b) {
; exp(a) * exp(b) reassoc, multiple uses
define double @exp_a_exp_b_multiple_uses(double %a, double %b) {
; CHECK-LABEL: @exp_a_exp_b_multiple_uses(
-; CHECK-NEXT: [[T1:%.*]] = call double @llvm.exp.f64(double [[B:%.*]])
+; CHECK-NEXT: [[T1:%.*]] = call reassoc double @llvm.exp.f64(double [[B:%.*]])
; CHECK-NEXT: [[TMP1:%.*]] = fadd reassoc double [[A:%.*]], [[B]]
; CHECK-NEXT: [[MUL:%.*]] = call reassoc double @llvm.exp.f64(double [[TMP1]])
; CHECK-NEXT: call void @use(double [[T1]])
; CHECK-NEXT: ret double [[MUL]]
;
- %t = call double @llvm.exp.f64(double %a)
- %t1 = call double @llvm.exp.f64(double %b)
+ %t = call reassoc double @llvm.exp.f64(double %a)
+ %t1 = call reassoc double @llvm.exp.f64(double %b)
%mul = fmul reassoc double %t, %t1
call void @use(double %t1)
ret double %mul
@@ -59,8 +59,8 @@ define double @exp_a_exp_b_reassoc(double %a, double %b) {
; CHECK-NEXT: [[MUL:%.*]] = call reassoc double @llvm.exp.f64(double [[TMP1]])
; CHECK-NEXT: ret double [[MUL]]
;
- %t = call double @llvm.exp.f64(double %a)
- %t1 = call double @llvm.exp.f64(double %b)
+ %t = call reassoc double @llvm.exp.f64(double %a)
+ %t1 = call reassoc double @llvm.exp.f64(double %b)
%mul = fmul reassoc double %t, %t1
ret double %mul
}
@@ -71,7 +71,7 @@ define double @exp_a_a(double %a) {
; CHECK-NEXT: [[M:%.*]] = call reassoc double @llvm.exp.f64(double [[TMP1]])
; CHECK-NEXT: ret double [[M]]
;
- %t = call double @llvm.exp.f64(double %a)
+ %t = call reassoc double @llvm.exp.f64(double %a)
%m = fmul reassoc double %t, %t
ret double %m
}
@@ -100,12 +100,12 @@ define double @exp_a_exp_b_exp_c_ex...
[truncated]
|
Should say fast math flags, attributes are a different thing |
arsenm
requested changes
Nov 7, 2023
The potential issue is based on the discussion of PR69998. The Transfrom is reasonable when the I and all of its operands have the reassoc flag. Also add some reassoc to the original test case to retain the original optimization logic. NOTE: The IR node may have different fast math flags within a function if you're doing LTO.
|
ping ？ |
arsenm
requested changes
Nov 15, 2023
Comment on lines
+326
to
+329
| if (!isa<FPMathOperator>(V)) | ||
| return true; | ||
|
|
||
| auto *FPOp = cast<FPMathOperator>(V); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
dyn_cast instead of isa+cast
| return FPOp->hasAllowReassoc(); | ||
|
|
||
| default: | ||
| return true; |
| bool Instruction::hasAllowReassocOfAllOperand() const { | ||
| return all_of(operands(), [](Value *V) { | ||
| if (!isa<FPMathOperator>(V)) | ||
| return true; |
arsenm
reviewed
Nov 15, 2023
|
|
||
| auto *FPOp = cast<FPMathOperator>(V); | ||
| switch (FPOp->getOpcode()) { | ||
| case Instruction::FNeg: |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Don't really need the opcode checks?
arsenm
reviewed
Feb 29, 2024
| @@ -781,7 +781,7 @@ Instruction *InstCombinerImpl::visitFMul(BinaryOperator &I) { | |||
| if (Value *V = SimplifySelectsFeedingBinaryOp(I, Op0, Op1)) | |||
| return replaceInstUsesWith(I, V); | |||
|
|
|||
| if (I.hasAllowReassoc()) | |||
| if (I.hasAllowReassoc() && I.hasAllowReassocOfAllOperand()) | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think this is a bit too specific of a query to add to Instruction. It will also be imprecise in cases where the source is a constant / load /argument or other non-instruction source
|
This is hard to fix with a unified approach, and need continuous improvement, such as PR86428, so close it now |
I don't follow why this is being closed. What do you mean unified approach? |
|
I think it is difficult to accurately describe which operands need to have the reassoc attribute. A case for point We may think the above case can't be fold because the %mul0 missing reassoc attribute, but in fact we can fold the %mul1 into %mul2. Therefore, it is not appropriate to ensure that all operands have reassoc attribute as a prerequisite for optimization. |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
The potential issue is based on the discussion of PR69998 .
The Transfrom is reasonable when the I and all of its operands have the reassoc attribute.
Also add some reassoc to the original test case to retain the original optimization logic.
Note:
The IR node may have different fast math flags within a function if you're doing LTO.