[PatternMatch] Stabilize the matching order of commutative matchers
authorRoman Lebedev <lebedev.ri@gmail.com>
Fri, 27 Apr 2018 21:23:20 +0000 (21:23 +0000)
committerRoman Lebedev <lebedev.ri@gmail.com>
Fri, 27 Apr 2018 21:23:20 +0000 (21:23 +0000)
commit6959b8e76f18f63aacaaf24dd74b11d733b57314
treee14f715a8e8b9ce45a52d0203f22666e403267a2
parent8ee7d01dcfd394bd9836e104b8f8fe9d9625dda1
[PatternMatch] Stabilize the matching order of commutative matchers

Summary:
Currently, we
1. match `LHS` matcher to the `first` operand of binary operator,
2. and then match `RHS` matcher to the `second` operand of binary operator.
If that does not match, we swap the `LHS` and `RHS` matchers:
1. match `RHS` matcher to the `first` operand of binary operator,
2. and then match `LHS` matcher to the `second` operand of binary operator.

This works ok.
But it complicates writing of commutative matchers, where one would like to match
(`m_Value()`) the value on one side, and use (`m_Specific()`) it on the other side.

This is additionally complicated by the fact that `m_Specific()` stores the `Value *`,
not `Value **`, so it won't work at all out of the box.

The last problem is trivially solved by adding a new `m_c_Specific()` that stores the
`Value **`, not `Value *`. I'm choosing to add a new matcher, not change the existing
one because i guess all the current users are ok with existing behavior,
and this additional pointer indirection may have performance drawbacks.
Also, i'm storing pointer, not reference, because for some mysterious-to-me reason
it did not work with the reference.

The first one appears trivial, too.
Currently, we
1. match `LHS` matcher to the `first` operand of binary operator,
2. and then match `RHS` matcher to the `second` operand of binary operator.
If that does not match, we swap the ~~`LHS` and `RHS` matchers~~ **operands**:
1. match ~~`RHS`~~ **`LHS`** matcher to the ~~`first`~~ **`second`** operand of binary operator,
2. and then match ~~`LHS`~~ **`RHS`** matcher to the ~~`second`~ **`first`** operand of binary operator.

Surprisingly, `$ ninja check-llvm` still passes with this.
But i expect the bots will disagree..

The motivational unittest is included.
I'd like to use this in D45664.

Reviewers: spatel, craig.topper, arsenm, RKSimon

Reviewed By: craig.topper

Subscribers: xbolva00, wdng, llvm-commits

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D45828

llvm-svn: 331085
llvm/include/llvm/IR/PatternMatch.h
llvm/lib/Analysis/ValueTracking.cpp
llvm/lib/Transforms/InstCombine/InstCombineAddSub.cpp
llvm/lib/Transforms/InstCombine/InstCombineAndOrXor.cpp
llvm/test/Transforms/InstCombine/and-or-not.ll
llvm/test/Transforms/InstCombine/or-xor.ll
llvm/unittests/IR/PatternMatch.cpp