-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 14.9k
[DAGCombiner] add fold (xor (smin(x, C), C)) and fold (xor (smax(x, C), C)) #155141
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.
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
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
Thank you for submitting a Pull Request (PR) to the LLVM Project! This PR will be automatically labeled and the relevant teams will be notified. If you wish to, you can add reviewers by using the "Reviewers" section on this page. If this is not working for you, it is probably because you do not have write permissions for the repository. In which case you can instead tag reviewers by name in a comment by using If you have received no comments on your PR for a week, you can request a review by "ping"ing the PR by adding a comment “Ping”. The common courtesy "ping" rate is once a week. Please remember that you are asking for valuable time from other developers. If you have further questions, they may be answered by the LLVM GitHub User Guide. You can also ask questions in a comment on this PR, on the LLVM Discord or on the forums. |
@llvm/pr-subscribers-llvm-selectiondag @llvm/pr-subscribers-backend-aarch64 Author: guan jian (rez5427) ChangesHi, I compared the following LLVM IR with GCC and Clang, and there is a small difference between the two. The LLVM IR is:
GCC generates:
Clang generates:
Clang keeps flipping x0 through x8 unnecessarily. Full diff: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/155141.diff 2 Files Affected:
diff --git a/llvm/lib/CodeGen/SelectionDAG/DAGCombiner.cpp b/llvm/lib/CodeGen/SelectionDAG/DAGCombiner.cpp
index cee593def653c..681da941c5225 100644
--- a/llvm/lib/CodeGen/SelectionDAG/DAGCombiner.cpp
+++ b/llvm/lib/CodeGen/SelectionDAG/DAGCombiner.cpp
@@ -10086,6 +10086,48 @@ SDValue DAGCombiner::visitXOR(SDNode *N) {
if (SDValue Combined = combineCarryDiamond(DAG, TLI, N0, N1, N))
return Combined;
+ // fold (xor (smin(x, C), C)) -> select (x < C), xor(x, C), 0
+ // fold (xor (smin(C, x), C)) -> select (x < C), xor(x, C), 0
+ if (N0.getOpcode() == ISD::SMIN && N0.hasOneUse()) {
+ SDValue Op0 = N0.getOperand(0);
+ SDValue Op1 = N0.getOperand(1);
+
+ if(Op1 != N1) {
+ std::swap(Op0, Op1);
+ }
+
+ if (Op1 == N1) {
+ if (isa<ConstantSDNode>(N1)) {
+ EVT CCVT = getSetCCResultType(VT);
+ SDValue Cmp = DAG.getSetCC(SDLoc(N), CCVT, Op0, N1, ISD::SETLT);
+ SDValue XorXC = DAG.getNode(ISD::XOR, SDLoc(N), VT, Op0, N1);
+ SDValue Zero = DAG.getConstant(0, SDLoc(N), VT);
+ return DAG.getSelect(SDLoc(N), VT, Cmp, XorXC, Zero);
+ }
+ }
+ }
+
+ // fold (xor (smax(x, C), C)) -> select (x > C), xor(x, C), 0
+ // fold (xor (smax(C, x), C)) -> select (x > C), xor(x, C), 0
+ if (N0.getOpcode() == ISD::SMAX && N0.hasOneUse()) {
+ SDValue Op0 = N0.getOperand(0);
+ SDValue Op1 = N0.getOperand(1);
+
+ if(Op1 != N1) {
+ std::swap(Op0, Op1);
+ }
+
+ if (Op1 == N1) {
+ if (isa<ConstantSDNode>(N1)) {
+ EVT CCVT = getSetCCResultType(VT);
+ SDValue Cmp = DAG.getSetCC(SDLoc(N), CCVT, Op0, N1, ISD::SETGT);
+ SDValue XorXC = DAG.getNode(ISD::XOR, SDLoc(N), VT, Op0, N1);
+ SDValue Zero = DAG.getConstant(0, SDLoc(N), VT);
+ return DAG.getSelect(SDLoc(N), VT, Cmp, XorXC, Zero);
+ }
+ }
+ }
+
return SDValue();
}
diff --git a/llvm/test/CodeGen/AArch64/xor-smin-smax.ll b/llvm/test/CodeGen/AArch64/xor-smin-smax.ll
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000..cfdec2da61c7a
--- /dev/null
+++ b/llvm/test/CodeGen/AArch64/xor-smin-smax.ll
@@ -0,0 +1,75 @@
+; NOTE: Assertions have been autogenerated by utils/update_llc_test_checks.py
+; RUN: llc < %s -mtriple=aarch64-unknown-unknown | FileCheck %s
+
+; Test for DAGCombiner optimization: fold (xor (smin(x, C), C)) -> select (x < C), xor (x, C), 0
+
+define i64 @test_smin_neg_one(i64 %a) {
+; CHECK-LABEL: test_smin_neg_one:
+; CHECK: // %bb.0:
+; CHECK-NEXT: cmn x0, #1
+; CHECK-NEXT: csinv x0, xzr, x0, ge
+; CHECK-NEXT: ret
+ %1 = tail call i64 @llvm.smin.i64(i64 %a, i64 -1)
+ %retval.0 = xor i64 %1, -1
+ ret i64 %retval.0
+}
+
+define i64 @test_smin_zero(i64 %a) {
+; CHECK-LABEL: test_smin_zero:
+; CHECK: // %bb.0:
+; CHECK-NEXT: and x0, x0, x0, asr #63
+; CHECK-NEXT: ret
+ %1 = tail call i64 @llvm.smin.i64(i64 %a, i64 0)
+ %retval.0 = xor i64 %1, 0
+ ret i64 %retval.0
+}
+
+define i64 @test_smin_constant(i64 %a) {
+; CHECK-LABEL: test_smin_constant:
+; CHECK: // %bb.0:
+; CHECK-NEXT: eor x8, x0, #0x8
+; CHECK-NEXT: cmp x0, #8
+; CHECK-NEXT: csel x0, x8, xzr, lt
+; CHECK-NEXT: ret
+ %1 = tail call i64 @llvm.smin.i64(i64 %a, i64 8)
+ %retval.0 = xor i64 %1, 8
+ ret i64 %retval.0
+}
+
+; Test for DAGCombiner optimization: fold (xor (smax(x, C), C)) -> select (x > C), xor (x, C), 0
+
+define i64 @test_smax_neg_one(i64 %a) {
+; CHECK-LABEL: test_smax_neg_one:
+; CHECK: // %bb.0:
+; CHECK-NEXT: mvn x8, x0
+; CHECK-NEXT: bic x0, x8, x0, asr #63
+; CHECK-NEXT: ret
+ %1 = tail call i64 @llvm.smax.i64(i64 %a, i64 -1)
+ %retval.0 = xor i64 %1, -1
+ ret i64 %retval.0
+}
+
+define i64 @test_smax_zero(i64 %a) {
+; CHECK-LABEL: test_smax_zero:
+; CHECK: // %bb.0:
+; CHECK-NEXT: bic x0, x0, x0, asr #63
+; CHECK-NEXT: ret
+ %1 = tail call i64 @llvm.smax.i64(i64 %a, i64 0)
+ %retval.0 = xor i64 %1, 0
+ ret i64 %retval.0
+}
+
+define i64 @test_smax_constant(i64 %a) {
+; CHECK-LABEL: test_smax_constant:
+; CHECK: // %bb.0:
+; CHECK-NEXT: eor x8, x0, #0x8
+; CHECK-NEXT: cmp x0, #8
+; CHECK-NEXT: csel x0, x8, xzr, gt
+; CHECK-NEXT: ret
+ %1 = tail call i64 @llvm.smax.i64(i64 %a, i64 8)
+ %retval.0 = xor i64 %1, 8
+ ret i64 %retval.0
+}
+
+declare i64 @llvm.smin.i64(i64, i64)
+declare i64 @llvm.smax.i64(i64, i64)
\ No newline at end of file
|
✅ With the latest revision this PR passed the C/C++ code formatter. |
9e126e2
to
f8575c9
Compare
be85e72
to
c1f5bb1
Compare
c1f5bb1
to
c784fd8
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Should we avoid the fold if the minmax op is legal? xor+minmax is likely to be lighter than xor+cmp+select
Co-authored-by: Matt Arsenault <arsenm2@gmail.com>
Please can you add alive2 test links to the summary? |
|
ping |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
One last minor
7cf22b3
to
d22128e
Compare
Hi, I compared the following LLVM IR with GCC and Clang, and there is a small difference between the two. The LLVM IR is:
GCC generates:
Clang generates:
Clang keeps flipping x0 through x8 unnecessarily.
So I added the following folds to DAGCombiner:
fold (xor (smax(x, C), C)) -> select (x > C), xor(x, C), 0
fold (xor (smin(x, C), C)) -> select (x < C), xor(x, C), 0
alive2:
https://alive2.llvm.org/ce/z/NEeFyr