This is a preparatory cleanup before i add more
of this fold to deal with comparisons with non-zero.
In essence, the current lowering is:
Name: (X % C1) == 0 -> X * C3 <= C4 Pre: (C1 u>> countTrailingZeros(C1)) * C3 == 1 %zz = and i8 C3, 0 ; trick alive into making C3 avaliable in precondition %o0 = urem i8 %x, C1 %r = icmp eq i8 %o0, 0 => %zz = and i8 C3, 0 ; and silence it from complaining about said reg %C4 = -1 /u C1 %n0 = mul i8 %x, C3 %n1 = lshr i8 %n0, countTrailingZeros(C1) ; rotate right %n2 = shl i8 %n0, ((8-countTrailingZeros(C1)) %u 8) ; rotate right %n3 = or i8 %n1, %n2 ; rotate right %r = icmp ule i8 %n3, %C4
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/oqd
It kinda just works, really no weird edge-cases.
But it isn't all that great for when comparing with non-zero.
In particular, given (X % C1) == C2, there will be problems
in the always-false tautological case where C2 u>= C1:
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/pH3
That case is tautological, always-false:
Name: (X % Y) u>= Y %o0 = urem i8 %x, %y %r = icmp uge i8 %o0, %y => %r = false
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/ofu
While we can't/shouldn't get such tautological case normally,
we do deal with non-splat vectors, so unless we want to give up
in this case, we need to fixup/short-circuit such lanes.
There are two lowering variants:
- We can blend between whatever computed result and the correct tautological result
Name: (X % C1) == C2 -> X * C3 <= C4 || false Pre: (C2 == 0 || C1 u<= C2) && (C1 u>> countTrailingZeros(C1)) * C3 == 1 %zz = and i8 C3, 0 ; trick alive into making C3 avaliable in precondition %o0 = urem i8 %x, C1 %r = icmp eq i8 %o0, C2 => %zz = and i8 C3, 0 ; and silence it from complaining about said reg %C4 = -1 /u C1 %n0 = mul i8 %x, C3 %n1 = lshr i8 %n0, countTrailingZeros(C1) ; rotate right %n2 = shl i8 %n0, ((8-countTrailingZeros(C1)) %u 8) ; rotate right %n3 = or i8 %n1, %n2 ; rotate right %is_tautologically_false = icmp ule i8 C1, C2 %res = icmp ule i8 %n3, %C4 %r = select i1 %is_tautologically_false, i1 0, i1 %res
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/PjT5
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/1KV
- We can invert the comparison result
Name: (X % C1) == C2 -> X * C3 <= C4 || false Pre: (C2 == 0 || C1 u<= C2) && (C1 u>> countTrailingZeros(C1)) * C3 == 1 %zz = and i8 C3, 0 ; trick alive into making C3 avaliable in precondition %o0 = urem i8 %x, C1 %r = icmp eq i8 %o0, C2 => %zz = and i8 C3, 0 ; and silence it from complaining about said reg %C4 = -1 /u C1 %n0 = mul i8 %x, C3 %n1 = lshr i8 %n0, countTrailingZeros(C1) ; rotate right %n2 = shl i8 %n0, ((8-countTrailingZeros(C1)) %u 8) ; rotate right %n3 = or i8 %n1, %n2 ; rotate right %is_tautologically_false = icmp ule i8 C1, C2 %C4_fixed = select i1 %is_tautologically_false, i8 -1, i8 %C4 %res = icmp ule i8 %n3, %C4_fixed %r = xor i1 %res, %is_tautologically_false
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/2xC
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/jpb5
- We can expand into and/or:
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/WGn
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/lcb5
Blend-one is likely better since we avoid having to load the
replacement from constant pool. xor is second best since
it's still pretty general. I'm not adding and/or variants.