Newer
Older
ret i8 %D
}
//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
1005
1006
1007
1008
1009
1010
1011
1012
1013
1014
1015
1016
1017
1018
1019
1020
1021
1022
1023
1024
1025
1026
1027
1028
1029
1030
1031
1032
1033
1034
1035
1036
1037
1038
1039
1040
1041
1042
1043
1044
1045
1046
1047
1048
1049
1050
1051
1052
1053
1054
1055
1056
1057
1058
1059
1060
1061
1062
1063
1064
1065
1066
1067
1068
1069
1070
1071
1072
1073
1074
1075
1076
1077
1078
1079
1080
1081
1082
1083
1084
1085
1086
1087
1088
1089
1090
1091
1092
1093
1094
1095
1096
1097
1098
1099
1100
1101
1102
1103
1104
1105
1106
1107
1108
1109
1110
1111
1112
1113
1114
1115
1116
1117
1118
1119
1120
1121
1122
1123
1124
1125
1126
1127
1128
1129
1130
1131
1132
1133
1134
1135
1136
1137
1138
1139
1140
1141
1142
1143
1144
1145
1146
1147
1148
1149
1150
1151
1152
1153
1154
1155
1156
1157
1158
1159
1160
1161
1162
1163
1164
1165
1166
1167
1168
1169
1170
1171
1172
1173
1174
1175
1176
1177
1178
1179
1180
1181
1182
1183
1184
1185
1186
1187
1188
1189
1190
1191
1192
1193
1194
1195
1196
1197
1198
1199
1200
1201
1202
1203
1204
1205
1206
1207
1208
1209
1210
1211
1212
1213
1214
1215
1216
1217
1218
1219
1220
1221
1222
1223
1224
1225
1226
1227
1228
1229
1230
1231
1232
1233
1234
1235
1236
1237
1238
1239
1240
1241
1242
1243
1244
From gcc bug 24696:
int
f (unsigned long a, unsigned long b, unsigned long c)
{
return ((a & (c - 1)) != 0) || ((b & (c - 1)) != 0);
}
int
f (unsigned long a, unsigned long b, unsigned long c)
{
return ((a & (c - 1)) != 0) | ((b & (c - 1)) != 0);
}
Both should combine to ((a|b) & (c-1)) != 0. Currently not optimized with
"clang -emit-llvm-bc | opt -std-compile-opts".
//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
From GCC Bug 20192:
#define PMD_MASK (~((1UL << 23) - 1))
void clear_pmd_range(unsigned long start, unsigned long end)
{
if (!(start & ~PMD_MASK) && !(end & ~PMD_MASK))
f();
}
The expression should optimize to something like
"!((start|end)&~PMD_MASK). Currently not optimized with "clang
-emit-llvm-bc | opt -std-compile-opts".
//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
From GCC Bug 15241:
unsigned int
foo (unsigned int a, unsigned int b)
{
if (a <= 7 && b <= 7)
baz ();
}
Should combine to "(a|b) <= 7". Currently not optimized with "clang
-emit-llvm-bc | opt -std-compile-opts".
//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
From GCC Bug 3756:
int
pn (int n)
{
return (n >= 0 ? 1 : -1);
}
Should combine to (n >> 31) | 1. Currently not optimized with "clang
-emit-llvm-bc | opt -std-compile-opts | llc".
//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
From GCC Bug 28685:
int test(int a, int b)
{
int lt = a < b;
int eq = a == b;
return (lt || eq);
}
Should combine to "a <= b". Currently not optimized with "clang
-emit-llvm-bc | opt -std-compile-opts | llc".
//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
void a(int variable)
{
if (variable == 4 || variable == 6)
bar();
}
This should optimize to "if ((variable | 2) == 6)". Currently not
optimized with "clang -emit-llvm-bc | opt -std-compile-opts | llc".
//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
unsigned int f(unsigned int i, unsigned int n) {++i; if (i == n) ++i; return
i;}
unsigned int f2(unsigned int i, unsigned int n) {++i; i += i == n; return i;}
These should combine to the same thing. Currently, the first function
produces better code on X86.
//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
From GCC Bug 15784:
#define abs(x) x>0?x:-x
int f(int x, int y)
{
return (abs(x)) >= 0;
}
This should optimize to x == INT_MIN. (With -fwrapv.) Currently not
optimized with "clang -emit-llvm-bc | opt -std-compile-opts".
//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
From GCC Bug 14753:
void
rotate_cst (unsigned int a)
{
a = (a << 10) | (a >> 22);
if (a == 123)
bar ();
}
void
minus_cst (unsigned int a)
{
unsigned int tem;
tem = 20 - a;
if (tem == 5)
bar ();
}
void
mask_gt (unsigned int a)
{
/* This is equivalent to a > 15. */
if ((a & ~7) > 8)
bar ();
}
void
rshift_gt (unsigned int a)
{
/* This is equivalent to a > 23. */
if ((a >> 2) > 5)
bar ();
}
All should simplify to a single comparison. All of these are
currently not optimized with "clang -emit-llvm-bc | opt
-std-compile-opts".
//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
From GCC Bug 32605:
int c(int* x) {return (char*)x+2 == (char*)x;}
Should combine to 0. Currently not optimized with "clang
-emit-llvm-bc | opt -std-compile-opts" (although llc can optimize it).
//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
int a(unsigned char* b) {return *b > 99;}
There's an unnecessary zext in the generated code with "clang
-emit-llvm-bc | opt -std-compile-opts".
//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
int a(unsigned b) {return ((b << 31) | (b << 30)) >> 31;}
Should be combined to "((b >> 1) | b) & 1". Currently not optimized
with "clang -emit-llvm-bc | opt -std-compile-opts".
//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
unsigned a(unsigned x, unsigned y) { return x | (y & 1) | (y & 2);}
Should combine to "x | (y & 3)". Currently not optimized with "clang
-emit-llvm-bc | opt -std-compile-opts".
//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
unsigned a(unsigned a) {return ((a | 1) & 3) | (a & -4);}
Should combine to "a | 1". Currently not optimized with "clang
-emit-llvm-bc | opt -std-compile-opts".
//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
int a(int a, int b, int c) {return (~a & c) | ((c|a) & b);}
Should fold to "(~a & c) | (a & b)". Currently not optimized with
"clang -emit-llvm-bc | opt -std-compile-opts".
//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
int a(int a,int b) {return (~(a|b))|a;}
Should fold to "a|~b". Currently not optimized with "clang
-emit-llvm-bc | opt -std-compile-opts".
//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
int a(int a, int b) {return (a&&b) || (a&&!b);}
Should fold to "a". Currently not optimized with "clang -emit-llvm-bc
| opt -std-compile-opts".
//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
int a(int a, int b, int c) {return (a&&b) || (!a&&c);}
Should fold to "a ? b : c", or at least something sane. Currently not
optimized with "clang -emit-llvm-bc | opt -std-compile-opts".
//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
int a(int a, int b, int c) {return (a&&b) || (a&&c) || (a&&b&&c);}
Should fold to a && (b || c). Currently not optimized with "clang
-emit-llvm-bc | opt -std-compile-opts".
//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
int a(int x) {return x | ((x & 8) ^ 8);}
Should combine to x | 8. Currently not optimized with "clang
-emit-llvm-bc | opt -std-compile-opts".
//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
int a(int x) {return x ^ ((x & 8) ^ 8);}
Should also combine to x | 8. Currently not optimized with "clang
-emit-llvm-bc | opt -std-compile-opts".
//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
int a(int x) {return (x & 8) == 0 ? -1 : -9;}
Should combine to (x | -9) ^ 8. Currently not optimized with "clang
-emit-llvm-bc | opt -std-compile-opts".
//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
int a(int x) {return (x & 8) == 0 ? -9 : -1;}
Should combine to x | -9. Currently not optimized with "clang
-emit-llvm-bc | opt -std-compile-opts".
//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
int a(int x) {return ((x | -9) ^ 8) & x;}
Should combine to x & -9. Currently not optimized with "clang
-emit-llvm-bc | opt -std-compile-opts".
//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
unsigned a(unsigned a) {return a * 0x11111111 >> 28 & 1;}
Should combine to "a * 0x88888888 >> 31". Currently not optimized
with "clang -emit-llvm-bc | opt -std-compile-opts".
//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
unsigned a(char* x) {if ((*x & 32) == 0) return b();}
There's an unnecessary zext in the generated code with "clang
-emit-llvm-bc | opt -std-compile-opts".
//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
unsigned a(unsigned long long x) {return 40 * (x >> 1);}
Should combine to "20 * (((unsigned)x) & -2)". Currently not
optimized with "clang -emit-llvm-bc | opt -std-compile-opts".
//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
We would like to do the following transform in the instcombiner:
-X/C -> X/-C
However, this isn't valid if (-X) overflows. We can implement this when we
have the concept of a "C signed subtraction" operator that which is undefined
on overflow.
//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
1255
1256
1257
1258
1259
1260
1261
1262
1263
1264
1265
1266
1267
1268
1269
1270
1271
1272
1273
1274
1275
This was noticed in the entryblock for grokdeclarator in 403.gcc:
%tmp = icmp eq i32 %decl_context, 4
%decl_context_addr.0 = select i1 %tmp, i32 3, i32 %decl_context
%tmp1 = icmp eq i32 %decl_context_addr.0, 1
%decl_context_addr.1 = select i1 %tmp1, i32 0, i32 %decl_context_addr.0
tmp1 should be simplified to something like:
(!tmp || decl_context == 1)
This allows recursive simplifications, tmp1 is used all over the place in
the function, e.g. by:
%tmp23 = icmp eq i32 %decl_context_addr.1, 0 ; <i1> [#uses=1]
%tmp24 = xor i1 %tmp1, true ; <i1> [#uses=1]
%or.cond8 = and i1 %tmp23, %tmp24 ; <i1> [#uses=1]
later.