[InstCombine] Fold max/min when incrementing/decrementing by 1 #142466
Conversation
llvmbot
added
llvm:instcombine
|
@llvm/pr-subscribers-llvm-transforms @llvm/pr-subscribers-llvm-analysis Author: Alex MacLean (AlexMaclean) ChangesAdd the following folds for integer min max folding in ValueTracking:
These are safe when overflow corresponding to the sign of the comparison is poison. (proof https://alive2.llvm.org/ce/z/oj5iiI). The most common of these patterns is likely the minimum case which occurs in some internal library code when clamping an integer index to a range (The maximum cases are included for completeness). Here is a simplified example: int clampToWidth(int idx, int width) {
if (idx >= width)
return width - 1;
return idx;
}https://cuda.godbolt.org/z/nhPzWrc3W Full diff: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/142466.diff 2 Files Affected:
diff --git a/llvm/lib/Analysis/ValueTracking.cpp b/llvm/lib/Analysis/ValueTracking.cpp
index fc19b2ccf7964..416d586d52963 100644
--- a/llvm/lib/Analysis/ValueTracking.cpp
+++ b/llvm/lib/Analysis/ValueTracking.cpp
@@ -8388,6 +8388,24 @@ static SelectPatternResult matchMinMax(CmpInst::Predicate Pred,
}
}
+ // (X > Y) ? X : (Y - 1) ==> MIN(X, Y - 1)
+ // (X < Y) ? X : (Y + 1) ==> MAX(X, Y + 1)
+ // When overflow corresponding to the sign of the comparison is poison.
+ // Note that the UMIN case is not possible as we canonicalize to addition.
+ if (CmpLHS == TrueVal) {
+ if (Pred == CmpInst::ICMP_SGT &&
+ match(FalseVal, m_NSWAddLike(m_Specific(CmpRHS), m_ConstantInt<1>())))
+ return {SPF_SMAX, SPNB_NA, false};
+
+ if (Pred == CmpInst::ICMP_SLT &&
+ match(FalseVal, m_NSWAddLike(m_Specific(CmpRHS), m_ConstantInt<-1>())))
+ return {SPF_SMIN, SPNB_NA, false};
+
+ if (Pred == CmpInst::ICMP_UGT &&
+ match(FalseVal, m_NUWAddLike(m_Specific(CmpRHS), m_ConstantInt<1>())))
+ return {SPF_UMAX, SPNB_NA, false};
+ }
+
if (Pred != CmpInst::ICMP_SGT && Pred != CmpInst::ICMP_SLT)
return {SPF_UNKNOWN, SPNB_NA, false};
diff --git a/llvm/test/Transforms/InstCombine/minmax-fold.ll b/llvm/test/Transforms/InstCombine/minmax-fold.ll
index cd376b74fb36c..cf3515614321d 100644
--- a/llvm/test/Transforms/InstCombine/minmax-fold.ll
+++ b/llvm/test/Transforms/InstCombine/minmax-fold.ll
@@ -1596,3 +1596,40 @@ define <2 x i32> @test_umax_smax_vec_neg(<2 x i32> %x) {
%umax = call <2 x i32> @llvm.umax.v2i32(<2 x i32> %smax, <2 x i32> <i32 1, i32 10>)
ret <2 x i32> %umax
}
+
+define i32 @test_smin_sub1_nsw(i32 %x, i32 %w) {
+; CHECK-LABEL: @test_smin_sub1_nsw(
+; CHECK-NEXT: [[SUB:%.*]] = add nsw i32 [[W:%.*]], -1
+; CHECK-NEXT: [[R:%.*]] = call i32 @llvm.smin.i32(i32 [[X:%.*]], i32 [[SUB]])
+; CHECK-NEXT: ret i32 [[R]]
+;
+ %cmp = icmp slt i32 %x, %w
+ %sub = add nsw i32 %w, -1
+ %r = select i1 %cmp, i32 %x, i32 %sub
+ ret i32 %r
+}
+
+define i32 @test_smax_add1_nsw(i32 %x, i32 %w) {
+; CHECK-LABEL: @test_smax_add1_nsw(
+; CHECK-NEXT: [[X2:%.*]] = add nsw i32 [[W:%.*]], 1
+; CHECK-NEXT: [[R:%.*]] = call i32 @llvm.smax.i32(i32 [[X:%.*]], i32 [[X2]])
+; CHECK-NEXT: ret i32 [[R]]
+;
+ %cmp = icmp sgt i32 %x, %w
+ %add = add nsw i32 %w, 1
+ %r = select i1 %cmp, i32 %x, i32 %add
+ ret i32 %r
+}
+
+define i32 @test_umax_add1_nsw(i32 %x, i32 %w) {
+; CHECK-LABEL: @test_umax_add1_nsw(
+; CHECK-NEXT: [[X2:%.*]] = add nuw i32 [[W:%.*]], 1
+; CHECK-NEXT: [[R:%.*]] = call i32 @llvm.umax.i32(i32 [[X:%.*]], i32 [[X2]])
+; CHECK-NEXT: ret i32 [[R]]
+;
+ %cmp = icmp ugt i32 %x, %w
+ %add = add nuw i32 %w, 1
+ %r = select i1 %cmp, i32 %x, i32 %add
+ ret i32 %r
+}
+
|
llvm/lib/Analysis/ValueTracking.cpp
Outdated
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Missing fold for (X > Y) ? X : (Y -nuw 1) ==> umin(X, Y - 1)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Unfortunately, it seems this case is not possible. We canonicalize sub nuw %x, 1 to add %x, -1, discarding the nuw flag as unsigned wrap is now guaranteed unless %x is 0. I've noted that this case isn't possible in a comment. Is there a work around to this problem you can think of?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Can we check isKnownNonZero(%x) instead?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I could use Sounds good!isKnownNonZero for this case. Would that make sense?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Okay, I've added this case in
dtcxzyw
left a comment
dtcxzyw
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Miscompilation reproducer: https://alive2.llvm.org/ce/z/nxGw_V
define i8 @src(i8 %x, i8 %w) {
%cmp = icmp ugt i8 %x, %w
%add = add nsw nuw i8 %w, 1
%r = select i1 %cmp, i8 %x, i8 %add
ret i8 %r
}
define i8 @tgt(i8 %x, i8 %w) {
%add = add nsw nuw i8 %w, 1
%r = call i8 @llvm.umax(i8 %x, i8 %add)
ret i8 %r
}
We need to drop nsw/nuw flags in this case.
Thanks! I've fixed this case by ensuring that we now drop the no-wrap flag which doesn't correspond to the sign of the min/max. I've added tests to confirm as well. |
AlexMaclean
force-pushed
the
dev/amaclean/upstream/inc-dec-1-min-max
branch
from
abb02ec to
5d6aba5
Compare
dtcxzyw
changed the title
|
|
||
| /// Try to fold a select to a min/max intrinsic. Many cases are already handled | ||
| /// by matchDecomposedSelectPattern but here we handle the cases where more | ||
| /// exensive modification of the IR is required. |
| } | ||
|
|
||
| // Note: We must use isKnownNonZero here because "sub nuw %x, 1" will be | ||
| // canonicalize to "add %x, -1" discarding the nuw flag. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| // canonicalize to "add %x, -1" discarding the nuw flag. | |
| // canonicalized to "add %x, -1" discarding the nuw flag. |
| Pred = CmpInst::getSwappedPredicate(Pred); | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| // TODO: consider handeling 'or disjoint' as well, though these would need to |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| // TODO: consider handeling 'or disjoint' as well, though these would need to | |
| // TODO: consider handling 'or disjoint' as well, though these would need to |
|
|
||
| // TODO: consider handeling 'or disjoint' as well, though these would need to | ||
| // be converted to 'add' instructions. | ||
| if (CmpLHS == TVal && isa<Instruction>(FVal)) { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Sounds good. Updated.
| if (Pred == CmpInst::ICMP_ULT && | ||
| match(FVal, m_Add(m_Specific(CmpRHS), m_AllOnes())) && | ||
| isKnownNonZero(CmpRHS, SQ)) { | ||
| cast<Instruction>(FVal)->setHasNoSignedWrap(false); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
In this case the nuw flag is also invalid: https://alive2.llvm.org/ce/z/ZpSaKv
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Updated. In practice, I'm not sure we could ever reach this point in that case, at least I was not able to construct a test. But I agree it is good to stay on the safe side and not rely on unrelated optimizations to prevent a mis-compilation here.
|
@nikic would you like another chance to review this change or should I go ahead and land? |
…142466) Add the following folds for integer min max folding in InstCombine: - (X > Y) ? X : (Y - 1) ==> MIN(X, Y - 1) - (X < Y) ? X : (Y + 1) ==> MAX(X, Y + 1) These are safe when overflow corresponding to the sign of the comparison is poison. (proof https://alive2.llvm.org/ce/z/oj5iiI). The most common of these patterns is likely the minimum case which occurs in some internal library code when clamping an integer index to a range (The maximum cases are included for completeness). Here is a simplified example: int clampToWidth(int idx, int width) { if (idx >= width) return width - 1; return idx; } https://cuda.godbolt.org/z/nhPzWrc3W
4 participants
Add the following folds for integer min max folding in InstCombine:
These are safe when overflow corresponding to the sign of the comparison is poison. (proof https://alive2.llvm.org/ce/z/oj5iiI).
The most common of these patterns is likely the minimum case which occurs in some internal library code when clamping an integer index to a range (The maximum cases are included for completeness). Here is a simplified example:
https://cuda.godbolt.org/z/nhPzWrc3W