}
/// sext(add_nsw(x, C)) --> add(sext(x), C_sext)
-/// Promoting a sign extension ahead of an 'add nsw' exposes opportunities
-/// to combine math ops, use an LEA, or use a complex addressing mode. This can
-/// eliminate extend, add, and shift instructions.
-static SDValue promoteSextBeforeAddNSW(SDNode *Sext, SelectionDAG &DAG,
- const X86Subtarget &Subtarget) {
+/// zext(add_nuw(x, C)) --> add(zext(x), C_zext)
+/// Promoting a sign/zero extension ahead of a no overflow 'add' exposes
+/// opportunities to combine math ops, use an LEA, or use a complex addressing
+/// mode. This can eliminate extend, add, and shift instructions.
+static SDValue promoteExtBeforeAdd(SDNode *Ext, SelectionDAG &DAG,
+ const X86Subtarget &Subtarget) {
+ if (Ext->getOpcode() != ISD::SIGN_EXTEND &&
+ Ext->getOpcode() != ISD::ZERO_EXTEND)
+ return SDValue();
+
// TODO: This should be valid for other integer types.
- EVT VT = Sext->getValueType(0);
+ EVT VT = Ext->getValueType(0);
if (VT != MVT::i64)
return SDValue();
- // We need an 'add nsw' feeding into the 'sext'.
- SDValue Add = Sext->getOperand(0);
- if (Add.getOpcode() != ISD::ADD || !Add->getFlags()->hasNoSignedWrap())
+ SDValue Add = Ext->getOperand(0);
+ if (Add.getOpcode() != ISD::ADD)
+ return SDValue();
+
+ bool Sext = Ext->getOpcode() == ISD::SIGN_EXTEND;
+ bool NSW = Add->getFlags()->hasNoSignedWrap();
+ bool NUW = Add->getFlags()->hasNoUnsignedWrap();
+
+ // We need an 'add nsw' feeding into the 'sext' or 'add nuw' feeding
+ // into the 'zext'
+ if ((Sext && !NSW) || (!Sext && !NUW))
return SDValue();
// Having a constant operand to the 'add' ensures that we are not increasing
// of single 'add' instructions, but the cost model for selecting an LEA
// currently has a high threshold.
bool HasLEAPotential = false;
- for (auto *User : Sext->uses()) {
+ for (auto *User : Ext->uses()) {
if (User->getOpcode() == ISD::ADD || User->getOpcode() == ISD::SHL) {
HasLEAPotential = true;
break;
if (!HasLEAPotential)
return SDValue();
- // Everything looks good, so pull the 'sext' ahead of the 'add'.
- int64_t AddConstant = AddOp1->getSExtValue();
+ // Everything looks good, so pull the '{s|z}ext' ahead of the 'add'.
+ int64_t AddConstant = Sext ? AddOp1->getSExtValue() : AddOp1->getZExtValue();
SDValue AddOp0 = Add.getOperand(0);
- SDValue NewSext = DAG.getNode(ISD::SIGN_EXTEND, SDLoc(Sext), VT, AddOp0);
+ SDValue NewExt = DAG.getNode(Ext->getOpcode(), SDLoc(Ext), VT, AddOp0);
SDValue NewConstant = DAG.getConstant(AddConstant, SDLoc(Add), VT);
// The wider add is guaranteed to not wrap because both operands are
// sign-extended.
SDNodeFlags Flags;
- Flags.setNoSignedWrap(true);
- return DAG.getNode(ISD::ADD, SDLoc(Add), VT, NewSext, NewConstant, &Flags);
+ Flags.setNoSignedWrap(NSW);
+ Flags.setNoUnsignedWrap(NUW);
+ return DAG.getNode(ISD::ADD, SDLoc(Add), VT, NewExt, NewConstant, &Flags);
}
/// (i8,i32 {s/z}ext ({s/u}divrem (i8 x, i8 y)) ->
if (SDValue R = WidenMaskArithmetic(N, DAG, DCI, Subtarget))
return R;
- if (SDValue NewAdd = promoteSextBeforeAddNSW(N, DAG, Subtarget))
+ if (SDValue NewAdd = promoteExtBeforeAdd(N, DAG, Subtarget))
return NewAdd;
return SDValue();
if (SDValue DivRem8 = getDivRem8(N, DAG))
return DivRem8;
+ if (SDValue NewAdd = promoteExtBeforeAdd(N, DAG, Subtarget))
+ return NewAdd;
+
return SDValue();
}
; NOTE: Assertions have been autogenerated by utils/update_llc_test_checks.py
; RUN: llc < %s -mtriple=x86_64-unknown-unknown | FileCheck %s
-; The fundamental problem: an add separated from other arithmetic by a sext can't
-; be combined with the later instructions. However, if the first add is 'nsw',
-; then we can promote the sext ahead of that add to allow optimizations.
+; The fundamental problem: an add separated from other arithmetic by a sign or
+; zero extension can't be combined with the later instructions. However, if the
+; first add is 'nsw' or 'nuw' respectively, then we can promote the extension
+; ahead of that add to allow optimizations.
define i64 @add_nsw_consts(i32 %i) {
; CHECK-LABEL: add_nsw_consts:
ret void
}
+; The same as @PR20134 but sign extension is replaced with zero extension
+define void @PR20134_zext(i32* %a, i32 %i) {
+; CHECK: # BB#0:
+; CHECK-NEXT: movl %esi, %eax
+; CHECK-NEXT: movl 4(%rdi,%rax,4), %ecx
+; CHECK-NEXT: addl 8(%rdi,%rax,4), %ecx
+; CHECK-NEXT: movl %ecx, (%rdi,%rax,4)
+; CHECK-NEXT: retq
+
+ %add1 = add nuw i32 %i, 1
+ %idx1 = zext i32 %add1 to i64
+ %gep1 = getelementptr i32, i32* %a, i64 %idx1
+ %load1 = load i32, i32* %gep1, align 4
+
+ %add2 = add nuw i32 %i, 2
+ %idx2 = zext i32 %add2 to i64
+ %gep2 = getelementptr i32, i32* %a, i64 %idx2
+ %load2 = load i32, i32* %gep2, align 4
+
+ %add3 = add i32 %load1, %load2
+ %idx3 = zext i32 %i to i64
+ %gep3 = getelementptr i32, i32* %a, i64 %idx3
+ store i32 %add3, i32* %gep3, align 4
+ ret void
+}