Skip to content
Unverified Commit 352fef3f authored by Roman Lebedev's avatar Roman Lebedev
Browse files

[InstCombine] Negator - sink sinkable negations

Summary:
As we have discussed previously (e.g. in D63992 / D64090 / [[ https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=42457 | PR42457 ]]), `sub` instruction
can almost be considered non-canonical. While we do convert `sub %x, C` -> `add %x, -C`,
we sparsely do that for non-constants. But we should.

Here, i propose to interpret `sub %x, %y` as `add (sub 0, %y), %x` IFF the negation can be sinked into the `%y`

This has some potential to cause endless combine loops (either around PHI's, or if there are some opposite transforms).
For former there's `-instcombine-negator-max-depth` option to mitigate it, should this expose any such issues
For latter, if there are still any such opposing folds, we'd need to remove the colliding fold.
In any case, reproducers welcomed!

Reviewers: spatel, nikic, efriedma, xbolva00

Reviewed By: spatel

Subscribers: xbolva00, mgorny, hiraditya, reames, llvm-commits

Tags: #llvm

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D68408
parent a13dce1d
Loading
Loading
Loading
Loading
0% Loading or .
You are about to add 0 people to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
Please to comment