Reapply commit 143214 with a fix: m_ICmp doesn't match conditions

with the given predicate, it matches any condition and returns the
predicate - d'oh!  Original commit message:
The expression icmp eq (select (icmp eq x, 0), 1, x), 0 folds to false.
Spotted by my super-optimizer in 186.crafty and 450.soplex.  We really
need a proper infrastructure for handling generalizations of this kind
of thing (which occur a lot), however this case is so simple that I decided
to go ahead and implement it directly.


git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@143318 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8

1 files changed, 65 insertions, 29 deletions

diff --git a/lib/Analysis/InstructionSimplify.cpp b/lib/Analysis/InstructionSimplify.cpp
index 6bef0aedee..c2ddc6d486 100644
--- a/lib/Analysis/InstructionSimplify.cpp
+++ b/lib/Analysis/InstructionSimplify.cpp
@@ -68,6 +68,20 @@ static Constant *getTrue(Type *Ty) {
   return Constant::getAllOnesValue(Ty);
 }
 
+/// isSameCompare - Is V equivalent to the comparison "LHS Pred RHS"?
+static bool isSameCompare(Value *V, CmpInst::Predicate Pred, Value *LHS,
+                          Value *RHS) {
+  CmpInst *Cmp = dyn_cast<CmpInst>(V);
+  if (!Cmp)
+    return false;
+  CmpInst::Predicate CPred = Cmp->getPredicate();
+  Value *CLHS = Cmp->getOperand(0), *CRHS = Cmp->getOperand(1);
+  if (CPred == Pred && CLHS == LHS && CRHS == RHS)
+    return true;
+  return CPred == CmpInst::getSwappedPredicate(Pred) && CLHS == RHS &&
+    CRHS == LHS;
+}
+
 /// ValueDominatesPHI - Does the given value dominate the specified phi node?
 static bool ValueDominatesPHI(Value *V, PHINode *P, const DominatorTree *DT) {
   Instruction *I = dyn_cast<Instruction>(V);
@@ -416,40 +430,62 @@ static Value *ThreadCmpOverSelect(CmpInst::Predicate Pred, Value *LHS,
   }
   assert(isa<SelectInst>(LHS) && "Not comparing with a select instruction!");
   SelectInst *SI = cast<SelectInst>(LHS);
+  Value *Cond = SI->getCondition();
+  Value *TV = SI->getTrueValue();
+  Value *FV = SI->getFalseValue();
 
   // Now that we have "cmp select(Cond, TV, FV), RHS", analyse it.
   // Does "cmp TV, RHS" simplify?
-  if (Value *TCmp = SimplifyCmpInst(Pred, SI->getTrueValue(), RHS, TD, DT,
-                                    MaxRecurse)) {
-    // It does!  Does "cmp FV, RHS" simplify?
-    if (Value *FCmp = SimplifyCmpInst(Pred, SI->getFalseValue(), RHS, TD, DT,
-                                      MaxRecurse)) {
-      // It does!  If they simplified to the same value, then use it as the
-      // result of the original comparison.
-      if (TCmp == FCmp)
-        return TCmp;
-      Value *Cond = SI->getCondition();
-      // If the false value simplified to false, then the result of the compare
-      // is equal to "Cond && TCmp".  This also catches the case when the false
-      // value simplified to false and the true value to true, returning "Cond".
-      if (match(FCmp, m_Zero()))
-        if (Value *V = SimplifyAndInst(Cond, TCmp, TD, DT, MaxRecurse))
-          return V;
-      // If the true value simplified to true, then the result of the compare
-      // is equal to "Cond || FCmp".
-      if (match(TCmp, m_One()))
-        if (Value *V = SimplifyOrInst(Cond, FCmp, TD, DT, MaxRecurse))
-          return V;
-      // Finally, if the false value simplified to true and the true value to
-      // false, then the result of the compare is equal to "!Cond".
-      if (match(FCmp, m_One()) && match(TCmp, m_Zero()))
-        if (Value *V =
-            SimplifyXorInst(Cond, Constant::getAllOnesValue(Cond->getType()),
-                            TD, DT, MaxRecurse))
-          return V;
-    }
+  Value *TCmp = SimplifyCmpInst(Pred, TV, RHS, TD, DT, MaxRecurse);
+  if (TCmp == Cond) {
+    // It not only simplified, it simplified to the select condition.  Replace
+    // it with 'true'.
+    TCmp = getTrue(Cond->getType());
+  } else if (!TCmp) {
+    // It didn't simplify.  However if "cmp TV, RHS" is equal to the select
+    // condition then we can replace it with 'true'.  Otherwise give up.
+    if (!isSameCompare(Cond, Pred, TV, RHS))
+      return 0;
+    TCmp = getTrue(Cond->getType());
+  }
+
+  // Does "cmp FV, RHS" simplify?
+  Value *FCmp = SimplifyCmpInst(Pred, FV, RHS, TD, DT, MaxRecurse);
+  if (FCmp == Cond) {
+    // It not only simplified, it simplified to the select condition.  Replace
+    // it with 'false'.
+    FCmp = getFalse(Cond->getType());
+  } else if (!FCmp) {
+    // It didn't simplify.  However if "cmp FV, RHS" is equal to the select
+    // condition then we can replace it with 'false'.  Otherwise give up.
+    if (!isSameCompare(Cond, Pred, FV, RHS))
+      return 0;
+    FCmp = getFalse(Cond->getType());
   }
 
+  // If both sides simplified to the same value, then use it as the result of
+  // the original comparison.
+  if (TCmp == FCmp)
+    return TCmp;
+  // If the false value simplified to false, then the result of the compare
+  // is equal to "Cond && TCmp".  This also catches the case when the false
+  // value simplified to false and the true value to true, returning "Cond".
+  if (match(FCmp, m_Zero()))
+    if (Value *V = SimplifyAndInst(Cond, TCmp, TD, DT, MaxRecurse))
+      return V;
+  // If the true value simplified to true, then the result of the compare
+  // is equal to "Cond || FCmp".
+  if (match(TCmp, m_One()))
+    if (Value *V = SimplifyOrInst(Cond, FCmp, TD, DT, MaxRecurse))
+      return V;
+  // Finally, if the false value simplified to true and the true value to
+  // false, then the result of the compare is equal to "!Cond".
+  if (match(FCmp, m_One()) && match(TCmp, m_Zero()))
+    if (Value *V =
+        SimplifyXorInst(Cond, Constant::getAllOnesValue(Cond->getType()),
+                        TD, DT, MaxRecurse))
+      return V;
+
   return 0;
 }