Also check this case:

#include <algorithm>

int test(int a, int b)
{
    return std::max(std::max(a,b), std::max(b,a));
}

The examples here don't need -ffast-math because they're integer ops.

This might be solved by canonicalizing min/max harder in instcombine, so we 'see' the common compare instructions:

define i32 @max_of_minmax(i32 %a, i32 %b) {
  %cmin = icmp slt i32 %b, %a
  %cmax = icmp slt i32 %a, %b
  %min = select i1 %cmin, i32 %b, i32 %a
  %max = select i1 %cmax, i32 %b, i32 %a
  %cmax2 = icmp slt i32 %min, %max
  %max2 = select i1 %cmax2, i32 %min, i32 %max
  ret i32 %max2
}

define i32 @max_of_maxmax(i32 %a, i32 %b) {
  %cmax1 = icmp slt i32 %a, %b
  %cmax2 = icmp slt i32 %b, %a
  %max1 = select i1 %cmax1, i32 %b, i32 %a
  %max2 = select i1 %cmax2, i32 %a, i32 %b
  %cmax3 = icmp slt i32 %max2, %max1
  %max3 = select i1 %cmax3, i32 %max2, i32 %max1
  ret i32 %max3
}

On 2nd thought, if we ignore the trailing select, this can be viewed as a failure of InstSimplify to fold the last icmp.

We have "simplifyICmpWithMinMax" but it doesn't look for patterns like this where both operands are min and/or max.

We have "simplifyICmpWithMinMax" but it doesn't look for patterns like this
where both operands are min and/or max.

Oops - it actually does look for these kinds of patterns after checking other cases. It's just missing some potential matches like:
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/Mdm

But that won't solve the 1st example. We'd have to match that as a min/max of min/max operands.

We have "simplifyICmpWithMinMax" but it doesn't look for patterns like this
where both operands are min and/or max.

Oops - it actually does look for these kinds of patterns after checking
other cases. It's just missing some potential matches like:
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/Mdm

On 3rd thought, the real problem is that early-cse doesn't know that these are equivalent:
std::max(a,b)
std::max(b,a)
(for integers at least)

Ie, it knows that binops and compares can commute operands and be equivalent, but because min/max are not IR instructions or intrinsics, it fails to see min/max in the same way.

Related logic added to value tracking:
https://reviews.llvm.org/rL321672

Early-cse was improved for integer min/max here:
https://reviews.llvm.org/rL320640

...but we still need to match this pattern in instcombine.

define i32 @test(i32, i32) {
  %3 = icmp slt i32 %1, %0
  %4 = icmp slt i32 %0, %1
  %5 = select i1 %3, i32 %1, i32 %0
  %6 = select i1 %4, i32 %1, i32 %0
  %7 = icmp slt i32 %5, %6
  %8 = select i1 %7, i32 %6, i32 %5
  ret i32 %8
}

See this example:

#include <algorithm>

int test(float a, float b)
{
    return std::max(std::min(a,b), std::max(a,b));
}

I have changed here variables types to float and optimization failed too - clang trunk with '-O3 -ffast-math'generates this:

test(float, float):                              # @test(float, float)
        movaps  xmm2, xmm1
        minss   xmm2, xmm0
        maxss   xmm1, xmm0
        maxss   xmm1, xmm2
        cvttss2si       eax, xmm1
        ret

All integer min/max patterns should be optimized after:
https://reviews.llvm.org/rL369386

FP will have to check fast-math-flags to handle NaN and -0.0 properly.
If so, we need to make sure that our FMF propagation is working as expected. In particular, we may need to extend FMF to phi nodes of FP values, so they get applied to a 'select' when we run -simplifycfg.

Current Codegen: https://godbolt.org/z/kVBRNY

Update - we have FMF on phi with:
https://reviews.llvm.org/D67564

...but there was feedback that this may have unintended consequences, so posted for discussion on llvm-dev:
http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2019-September/135444.html

No responses so far, but as suggested, I'm waiting to build on that until people have plenty of time to see that.

Assuming it sticks, the next step would be to fix SimplifyCFG to propagate FMF from phi to select.

Assuming it sticks, the next step would be to fix SimplifyCFG to propagate
FMF from phi to select.

That part is at least partly done:
https://reviews.llvm.org/rGebf9bf2cbc8f

But this example is harder than I imagined: we have to propagate FMF through memory ops and/or function parameters because the min/max calls take references (pointers) as arguments. That means we don't start with a phi of FP values; it's a phi of pointers to FP values.

mentioned in issue #34959