[InstCombine] Use disjoint flag instead of calling haveNoCommonBitsSet.

[topperc]

No description provided.

[llvmbot]

@llvm/pr-subscribers-llvm-transforms

Author: Craig Topper (topperc)

Changes

---

Full diff: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/74222.diff

1 Files Affected:

• (modified) llvm/lib/Transforms/InstCombine/InstCombineAndOrXor.cpp (+1-1)

diff --git a/llvm/lib/Transforms/InstCombine/InstCombineAndOrXor.cpp b/llvm/lib/Transforms/InstCombine/InstCombineAndOrXor.cpp
index 7379bdf93169e..481fcdf181946 100644
--- a/llvm/lib/Transforms/InstCombine/InstCombineAndOrXor.cpp
+++ b/llvm/lib/Transforms/InstCombine/InstCombineAndOrXor.cpp
@@ -3395,7 +3395,7 @@ Instruction *InstCombinerImpl::visitOr(BinaryOperator &I) {
   // or (mul X, Y), X --> add (mul X, Y), X --> mul X, (Y + 1)
   if (match(&I,
             m_c_Or(m_OneUse(m_Mul(m_Value(X), m_Value(Y))), m_Deferred(X))) &&
-      haveNoCommonBitsSet(Op0, Op1, DL)) {
+      cast<PossiblyDisjointInst>(I).isDisjoint()) {
     Value *IncrementY = Builder.CreateAdd(Y, ConstantInt::get(Ty, 1));
     return BinaryOperator::CreateMul(X, IncrementY);
   }

[nikic]

LGTM

We'll probably want to have m_DisjointOr() if there are more cases like this.

[nikic]

Actually, can you please add an extra test that explicitly uses or disjoint with this transform? (Without haveNoCommonBitsSet being able to derive it.)