[InstCombine] Simplify nested selects with implied condition #83739

dtcxzyw · 2024-03-03T19:31:04Z

This patch does the following simplification:

sel1 = select cond1, X, Y 
sel2 = select cond2, sel1, Z
-->
sel2 = select cond2, X, Z if cond2 implies cond1
sel2 = select cond2, Y, Z if cond2 implies !cond1

Alive2: https://alive2.llvm.org/ce/z/9A_arU

It cannot be done in CVP/SCCP since we should guarantee that cond2 is not an undef.

llvmbot · 2024-03-03T19:31:37Z

@llvm/pr-subscribers-llvm-transforms

Author: Yingwei Zheng (dtcxzyw)

Changes

This patch does the following simplification:

sel1 = select cond1, X, Y 
sel2 = select cond2, sel1, Z
--&gt;
sel2 = select cond2, X, Z if cond2 implies cond1
sel2 = select cond2, Y, Z if cond2 implies !cond1

Alive2: https://alive2.llvm.org/ce/z/9A_arU

It cannot be done in CVP/SCCP since we should guarantee that cond2 is not an undef.

Full diff: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/83739.diff

3 Files Affected:

(modified) llvm/lib/Transforms/InstCombine/InstCombineSelect.cpp (+17)
(modified) llvm/test/Transforms/InstCombine/canonicalize-clamp-like-pattern-between-negative-and-positive-thresholds.ll (+4-8)
(modified) llvm/test/Transforms/InstCombine/nested-select.ll (+84)

diff --git a/llvm/lib/Transforms/InstCombine/InstCombineSelect.cpp b/llvm/lib/Transforms/InstCombine/InstCombineSelect.cpp
index 71fa9b9ba41ebb..dc4347fdd713c6 100644
--- a/llvm/lib/Transforms/InstCombine/InstCombineSelect.cpp
+++ b/llvm/lib/Transforms/InstCombine/InstCombineSelect.cpp
@@ -3867,5 +3867,22 @@ Instruction *InstCombinerImpl::visitSelectInst(SelectInst &SI) {
     }
   }
 
+  // Fold nested selects if the inner condition can be implied by the outer
+  // condition.
+  Value *InnerCondVal;
+  const DataLayout &DL = getDataLayout();
+  if (match(TrueVal,
+            m_Select(m_Value(InnerCondVal), m_Value(LHS), m_Value(RHS))) &&
+      CondVal->getType() == InnerCondVal->getType())
+    if (auto Implied =
+            isImpliedCondition(CondVal, InnerCondVal, DL, /*LHSIsTrue=*/true))
+      return replaceOperand(SI, 1, *Implied ? LHS : RHS);
+  if (match(FalseVal,
+            m_Select(m_Value(InnerCondVal), m_Value(LHS), m_Value(RHS))) &&
+      CondVal->getType() == InnerCondVal->getType())
+    if (auto Implied =
+            isImpliedCondition(CondVal, InnerCondVal, DL, /*LHSIsTrue=*/false))
+      return replaceOperand(SI, 2, *Implied ? LHS : RHS);
+
   return nullptr;
 }
diff --git a/llvm/test/Transforms/InstCombine/canonicalize-clamp-like-pattern-between-negative-and-positive-thresholds.ll b/llvm/test/Transforms/InstCombine/canonicalize-clamp-like-pattern-between-negative-and-positive-thresholds.ll
index d03e22bc4c9fbf..b5ef1f466958d7 100644
--- a/llvm/test/Transforms/InstCombine/canonicalize-clamp-like-pattern-between-negative-and-positive-thresholds.ll
+++ b/llvm/test/Transforms/InstCombine/canonicalize-clamp-like-pattern-between-negative-and-positive-thresholds.ll
@@ -189,10 +189,8 @@ define i32 @n9_ult_slt_neg17(i32 %x, i32 %replacement_low, i32 %replacement_high
 ; Regression test for PR53252.
 define i32 @n10_ugt_slt(i32 %x, i32 %replacement_low, i32 %replacement_high) {
 ; CHECK-LABEL: @n10_ugt_slt(
-; CHECK-NEXT:    [[T0:%.*]] = icmp slt i32 [[X:%.*]], 0
-; CHECK-NEXT:    [[T1:%.*]] = select i1 [[T0]], i32 [[REPLACEMENT_LOW:%.*]], i32 [[REPLACEMENT_HIGH:%.*]]
-; CHECK-NEXT:    [[T2:%.*]] = icmp ugt i32 [[X]], 128
-; CHECK-NEXT:    [[R:%.*]] = select i1 [[T2]], i32 [[X]], i32 [[T1]]
+; CHECK-NEXT:    [[T2:%.*]] = icmp ugt i32 [[X:%.*]], 128
+; CHECK-NEXT:    [[R:%.*]] = select i1 [[T2]], i32 [[X]], i32 [[REPLACEMENT_HIGH:%.*]]
 ; CHECK-NEXT:    ret i32 [[R]]
 ;
   %t0 = icmp slt i32 %x, 0
@@ -204,10 +202,8 @@ define i32 @n10_ugt_slt(i32 %x, i32 %replacement_low, i32 %replacement_high) {
 
 define i32 @n11_uge_slt(i32 %x, i32 %replacement_low, i32 %replacement_high) {
 ; CHECK-LABEL: @n11_uge_slt(
-; CHECK-NEXT:    [[T0:%.*]] = icmp slt i32 [[X:%.*]], 0
-; CHECK-NEXT:    [[T1:%.*]] = select i1 [[T0]], i32 [[REPLACEMENT_LOW:%.*]], i32 [[REPLACEMENT_HIGH:%.*]]
-; CHECK-NEXT:    [[T2:%.*]] = icmp ult i32 [[X]], 129
-; CHECK-NEXT:    [[R:%.*]] = select i1 [[T2]], i32 [[T1]], i32 [[X]]
+; CHECK-NEXT:    [[T2:%.*]] = icmp ult i32 [[X:%.*]], 129
+; CHECK-NEXT:    [[R:%.*]] = select i1 [[T2]], i32 [[REPLACEMENT_HIGH:%.*]], i32 [[X]]
 ; CHECK-NEXT:    ret i32 [[R]]
 ;
   %t0 = icmp slt i32 %x, 0
diff --git a/llvm/test/Transforms/InstCombine/nested-select.ll b/llvm/test/Transforms/InstCombine/nested-select.ll
index 42a0f81e7b85a2..d4bbf0ae48590a 100644
--- a/llvm/test/Transforms/InstCombine/nested-select.ll
+++ b/llvm/test/Transforms/InstCombine/nested-select.ll
@@ -498,3 +498,87 @@ define i1 @orcond.111.inv.all.conds(i1 %inner.cond, i1 %alt.cond, i1 %inner.sel.
   %outer.sel = select i1 %not.outer.cond, i1 true, i1 %inner.sel
   ret i1 %outer.sel
 }
+
+define i8 @test_implied_true(i8 %x) {
+; CHECK-LABEL: @test_implied_true(
+; CHECK-NEXT:    [[CMP2:%.*]] = icmp slt i8 [[X:%.*]], 0
+; CHECK-NEXT:    [[SEL2:%.*]] = select i1 [[CMP2]], i8 0, i8 20
+; CHECK-NEXT:    ret i8 [[SEL2]]
+;
+  %cmp1 = icmp slt i8 %x, 10
+  %cmp2 = icmp slt i8 %x, 0
+  %sel1 = select i1 %cmp1, i8 0, i8 5
+  %sel2 = select i1 %cmp2, i8 %sel1, i8 20
+  ret i8 %sel2
+}
+
+define <2 x i8> @test_implied_true_vec(<2 x i8> %x) {
+; CHECK-LABEL: @test_implied_true_vec(
+; CHECK-NEXT:    [[CMP2:%.*]] = icmp slt <2 x i8> [[X:%.*]], zeroinitializer
+; CHECK-NEXT:    [[SEL2:%.*]] = select <2 x i1> [[CMP2]], <2 x i8> zeroinitializer, <2 x i8> <i8 20, i8 20>
+; CHECK-NEXT:    ret <2 x i8> [[SEL2]]
+;
+  %cmp1 = icmp slt <2 x i8> %x, <i8 10, i8 10>
+  %cmp2 = icmp slt <2 x i8> %x, zeroinitializer
+  %sel1 = select <2 x i1> %cmp1, <2 x i8> zeroinitializer, <2 x i8> <i8 5, i8 5>
+  %sel2 = select <2 x i1> %cmp2, <2 x i8> %sel1, <2 x i8> <i8 20, i8 20>
+  ret <2 x i8> %sel2
+}
+
+define i8 @test_implied_true_falseval(i8 %x) {
+; CHECK-LABEL: @test_implied_true_falseval(
+; CHECK-NEXT:    [[CMP2:%.*]] = icmp sgt i8 [[X:%.*]], 0
+; CHECK-NEXT:    [[SEL2:%.*]] = select i1 [[CMP2]], i8 20, i8 0
+; CHECK-NEXT:    ret i8 [[SEL2]]
+;
+  %cmp1 = icmp slt i8 %x, 10
+  %cmp2 = icmp sgt i8 %x, 0
+  %sel1 = select i1 %cmp1, i8 0, i8 5
+  %sel2 = select i1 %cmp2, i8 20, i8 %sel1
+  ret i8 %sel2
+}
+
+define i8 @test_implied_false(i8 %x) {
+; CHECK-LABEL: @test_implied_false(
+; CHECK-NEXT:    [[CMP2:%.*]] = icmp slt i8 [[X:%.*]], 0
+; CHECK-NEXT:    [[SEL2:%.*]] = select i1 [[CMP2]], i8 5, i8 20
+; CHECK-NEXT:    ret i8 [[SEL2]]
+;
+  %cmp1 = icmp sgt i8 %x, 10
+  %cmp2 = icmp slt i8 %x, 0
+  %sel1 = select i1 %cmp1, i8 0, i8 5
+  %sel2 = select i1 %cmp2, i8 %sel1, i8 20
+  ret i8 %sel2
+}
+
+; Negative tests
+
+define i8 @test_imply_fail(i8 %x) {
+; CHECK-LABEL: @test_imply_fail(
+; CHECK-NEXT:    [[CMP1:%.*]] = icmp slt i8 [[X:%.*]], -10
+; CHECK-NEXT:    [[CMP2:%.*]] = icmp slt i8 [[X]], 0
+; CHECK-NEXT:    [[SEL1:%.*]] = select i1 [[CMP1]], i8 0, i8 5
+; CHECK-NEXT:    [[SEL2:%.*]] = select i1 [[CMP2]], i8 [[SEL1]], i8 20
+; CHECK-NEXT:    ret i8 [[SEL2]]
+;
+  %cmp1 = icmp slt i8 %x, -10
+  %cmp2 = icmp slt i8 %x, 0
+  %sel1 = select i1 %cmp1, i8 0, i8 5
+  %sel2 = select i1 %cmp2, i8 %sel1, i8 20
+  ret i8 %sel2
+}
+
+define <2 x i8> @test_imply_type_mismatch(<2 x i8> %x, i8 %y) {
+; CHECK-LABEL: @test_imply_type_mismatch(
+; CHECK-NEXT:    [[CMP1:%.*]] = icmp slt <2 x i8> [[X:%.*]], <i8 10, i8 10>
+; CHECK-NEXT:    [[CMP2:%.*]] = icmp slt i8 [[Y:%.*]], 0
+; CHECK-NEXT:    [[SEL1:%.*]] = select <2 x i1> [[CMP1]], <2 x i8> zeroinitializer, <2 x i8> <i8 5, i8 5>
+; CHECK-NEXT:    [[SEL2:%.*]] = select i1 [[CMP2]], <2 x i8> [[SEL1]], <2 x i8> <i8 20, i8 20>
+; CHECK-NEXT:    ret <2 x i8> [[SEL2]]
+;
+  %cmp1 = icmp slt <2 x i8> %x, <i8 10, i8 10>
+  %cmp2 = icmp slt i8 %y, 0
+  %sel1 = select <2 x i1> %cmp1, <2 x i8> zeroinitializer, <2 x i8> <i8 5, i8 5>
+  %sel2 = select i1 %cmp2, <2 x i8> %sel1, <2 x i8> <i8 20, i8 20>
+  ret <2 x i8> %sel2
+}

PR Link: llvm/llvm-project#83739

llvm/lib/Transforms/InstCombine/InstCombineSelect.cpp

nikic

This looks basically fine, but I think it may subsume some existing folds?

For example, what about this one?

llvm-project/llvm/lib/Transforms/InstCombine/InstCombineSelect.cpp

Lines 3646 to 3651 in 27ce512

    
           // select(C, select(C, a, b), c) -> select(C, a, c) 
        
           if (TrueSI->getCondition() == CondVal) { 
        
             if (SI.getTrueValue() == TrueSI->getTrueValue()) 
        
               return nullptr; 
        
             return replaceOperand(SI, 1, TrueSI->getTrueValue()); 
        
           }

There's also foldAndOrOfSelectUsingImpliedCond() -- I think your fold may be the same, but without the limitation that the top-level select is a logical one?

dtcxzyw · 2024-03-04T15:40:49Z

This looks basically fine, but I think it may subsume some existing folds?

For example, what about this one?

llvm-project/llvm/lib/Transforms/InstCombine/InstCombineSelect.cpp

Lines 3646 to 3651 in 27ce512

// select(C, select(C, a, b), c) -> select(C, a, c)

if (TrueSI->getCondition() == CondVal) {

if (SI.getTrueValue() == TrueSI->getTrueValue())

return nullptr;

return replaceOperand(SI, 1, TrueSI->getTrueValue());

}

There's also foldAndOrOfSelectUsingImpliedCond() -- I think your fold may be the same, but without the limitation that the top-level select is a logical one?

We can further remove the following logic if we fold it recursively.

llvm-project/llvm/lib/Transforms/InstCombine/InstCombineSelect.cpp

Lines 3682 to 3723 in d052148

    
           // Try to simplify a binop sandwiched between 2 selects with the same 
        
           // condition. This is not valid for div/rem because the select might be 
        
           // preventing a division-by-zero. 
        
           // TODO: A div/rem restriction is conservative; use something like 
        
           //       isSafeToSpeculativelyExecute(). 
        
           // select(C, binop(select(C, X, Y), W), Z) -> select(C, binop(X, W), Z) 
        
           BinaryOperator *TrueBO; 
        
           if (match(TrueVal, m_OneUse(m_BinOp(TrueBO))) && !TrueBO->isIntDivRem()) { 
        
             if (auto *TrueBOSI = dyn_cast<SelectInst>(TrueBO->getOperand(0))) { 
        
               if (TrueBOSI->getCondition() == CondVal) { 
        
                 replaceOperand(*TrueBO, 0, TrueBOSI->getTrueValue()); 
        
                 Worklist.push(TrueBO); 
        
                 return &SI; 
        
               } 
        
             } 
        
             if (auto *TrueBOSI = dyn_cast<SelectInst>(TrueBO->getOperand(1))) { 
        
               if (TrueBOSI->getCondition() == CondVal) { 
        
                 replaceOperand(*TrueBO, 1, TrueBOSI->getTrueValue()); 
        
                 Worklist.push(TrueBO); 
        
                 return &SI; 
        
               } 
        
             } 
        
           } 
        
           // select(C, Z, binop(select(C, X, Y), W)) -> select(C, Z, binop(Y, W)) 
        
           BinaryOperator *FalseBO; 
        
           if (match(FalseVal, m_OneUse(m_BinOp(FalseBO))) && !FalseBO->isIntDivRem()) { 
        
             if (auto *FalseBOSI = dyn_cast<SelectInst>(FalseBO->getOperand(0))) { 
        
               if (FalseBOSI->getCondition() == CondVal) { 
        
                 replaceOperand(*FalseBO, 0, FalseBOSI->getFalseValue()); 
        
                 Worklist.push(FalseBO); 
        
                 return &SI; 
        
               } 
        
             } 
        
             if (auto *FalseBOSI = dyn_cast<SelectInst>(FalseBO->getOperand(1))) { 
        
               if (FalseBOSI->getCondition() == CondVal) { 
        
                 replaceOperand(*FalseBO, 1, FalseBOSI->getFalseValue()); 
        
                 Worklist.push(FalseBO); 
        
                 return &SI; 
        
               } 
        
             } 
        
           }

dtcxzyw · 2024-03-04T16:21:52Z

This looks basically fine, but I think it may subsume some existing folds?

For example, what about this one?

llvm-project/llvm/lib/Transforms/InstCombine/InstCombineSelect.cpp

Lines 3646 to 3651 in 27ce512

// select(C, select(C, a, b), c) -> select(C, a, c)

if (TrueSI->getCondition() == CondVal) {

if (SI.getTrueValue() == TrueSI->getTrueValue())

return nullptr;

return replaceOperand(SI, 1, TrueSI->getTrueValue());

}

There's also foldAndOrOfSelectUsingImpliedCond() -- I think your fold may be the same, but without the limitation that the top-level select is a logical one?

Done.

PR Link: llvm/llvm-project#83739

nikic

LGTM

dtcxzyw · 2024-03-04T18:47:55Z

This looks basically fine, but I think it may subsume some existing folds?

For example, what about this one?

llvm-project/llvm/lib/Transforms/InstCombine/InstCombineSelect.cpp

Lines 3646 to 3651 in 27ce512

// select(C, select(C, a, b), c) -> select(C, a, c)

if (TrueSI->getCondition() == CondVal) {

if (SI.getTrueValue() == TrueSI->getTrueValue())

return nullptr;

return replaceOperand(SI, 1, TrueSI->getTrueValue());

}

There's also foldAndOrOfSelectUsingImpliedCond() -- I think your fold may be the same, but without the limitation that the top-level select is a logical one?

The compile-time improvement looks good:
http://llvm-compile-time-tracker.com/compare.php?from=732a5cba8c739ed40a7280b5d74ca717910c2c4c&to=2e94109d115a81f271cefc7d6c0e839920c52bba&stat=instructions%3Au

PR Link: llvm/llvm-project#83739

dtcxzyw added 2 commits March 4, 2024 03:05

[InstCombine] Add pre-commit tests. NFC.

2abbc12

[InstCombine] Simplify nested selects with implied condition

5bfe453

dtcxzyw requested a review from goldsteinn March 3, 2024 19:31

dtcxzyw requested a review from nikic as a code owner March 3, 2024 19:31

llvmbot added the llvm:transforms label Mar 3, 2024

dtcxzyw added a commit to dtcxzyw/llvm-opt-benchmark that referenced this pull request Mar 3, 2024

pre-commit: test PR83739

dcc762d

PR Link: llvm/llvm-project#83739

dtcxzyw mentioned this pull request Mar 3, 2024

pre-commit: test PR83739 dtcxzyw/llvm-opt-benchmark#285

Closed

goldsteinn reviewed Mar 3, 2024

View reviewed changes

llvm/lib/Transforms/InstCombine/InstCombineSelect.cpp Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

fixup! [InstCombine] Simplify nested selects with implied condition

3a3fa92

dtcxzyw mentioned this pull request Mar 4, 2024

[InstCombine] fold select of select with common argument #82350

Open

nikic reviewed Mar 4, 2024

View reviewed changes

fixup! [InstCombine] Simplify nested selects with implied condition

2e94109

dtcxzyw added a commit to dtcxzyw/llvm-opt-benchmark that referenced this pull request Mar 4, 2024

pre-commit: test PR83739

ef21351

PR Link: llvm/llvm-project#83739

nikic approved these changes Mar 4, 2024

View reviewed changes

[InstCombine] Fix assertion failure

ae3afc5

dtcxzyw added a commit to dtcxzyw/llvm-opt-benchmark that referenced this pull request Mar 4, 2024

pre-commit: test PR83739

9a08cb6

PR Link: llvm/llvm-project#83739

dtcxzyw merged commit 0c47363 into llvm:main Mar 5, 2024

dtcxzyw deleted the perf/nested-select-implied-condition branch March 5, 2024 06:11

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Uh oh!

[InstCombine] Simplify nested selects with implied condition #83739

[InstCombine] Simplify nested selects with implied condition #83739

Uh oh!

dtcxzyw commented Mar 3, 2024

Uh oh!

llvmbot commented Mar 3, 2024

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

nikic left a comment

Uh oh!

dtcxzyw commented Mar 4, 2024

Uh oh!

dtcxzyw commented Mar 4, 2024

Uh oh!

nikic left a comment

Uh oh!

dtcxzyw commented Mar 4, 2024

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

	// select(C, select(C, a, b), c) -> select(C, a, c)
	if (TrueSI->getCondition() == CondVal) {
	if (SI.getTrueValue() == TrueSI->getTrueValue())
	return nullptr;
	return replaceOperand(SI, 1, TrueSI->getTrueValue());
	}

[InstCombine] Simplify nested selects with implied condition #83739

[InstCombine] Simplify nested selects with implied condition #83739

Uh oh!

Conversation

dtcxzyw commented Mar 3, 2024

Uh oh!

llvmbot commented Mar 3, 2024

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

nikic left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

dtcxzyw commented Mar 4, 2024

Uh oh!

dtcxzyw commented Mar 4, 2024

Uh oh!

nikic left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

dtcxzyw commented Mar 4, 2024

Uh oh!

Uh oh!