[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
diff --git a/llvm/lib/Analysis/ValueTracking.cpp b/llvm/lib/Analysis/ValueTracking.cpp
index ac29cde..a799f7c 100644
--- a/llvm/lib/Analysis/ValueTracking.cpp
+++ b/llvm/lib/Analysis/ValueTracking.cpp
@@ -982,12 +982,9 @@
// matching the form add(x, add(x, y)) where y is odd.
// TODO: This could be generalized to clearing any bit set in y where the
// following bit is known to be unset in y.
- Value *Y = nullptr;
+ Value *X = nullptr, *Y = nullptr;
if (!Known.Zero[0] && !Known.One[0] &&
- (match(I->getOperand(0), m_Add(m_Specific(I->getOperand(1)),
- m_Value(Y))) ||
- match(I->getOperand(1), m_Add(m_Specific(I->getOperand(0)),
- m_Value(Y))))) {
+ match(I, m_c_BinOp(m_Value(X), m_Add(m_Deferred(X), m_Value(Y))))) {
Known2.resetAll();
computeKnownBits(Y, Known2, Depth + 1, Q);
if (Known2.countMinTrailingOnes() > 0)