There's no advantage to this instruction unless you need to avoid touching other flag bits. It's encoding is longer, it can't fold an immediate, it doesn't write all the flags.
I don't think gcc will generate this instruction either.
Fixes PR38852.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D51754
llvm-svn: 342059
We are currently only able to fold a load in operand 1 to ADCX. A load in operand 0 will use the legacy ADC instruction.
Ultimately I want to remove isel support for ADCX, but first I'm going to fix the shortcomings I know of so I can write proper MIR tests to maintain coverage later.
llvm-svn: 341744
We should represent the store directly in IR instead. This gives the middle end a chance to remove it if it can see a load from the same address.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D51769
llvm-svn: 341677
As part of the unification of the debug format and the MIR format, print
MBB references as '%bb.5'.
The MIR printer prints the IR name of a MBB only for block definitions.
* find . \( -name "*.mir" -o -name "*.cpp" -o -name "*.h" -o -name "*.ll" \) -type f -print0 | xargs -0 sed -i '' -E 's/BB#" << ([a-zA-Z0-9_]+)->getNumber\(\)/" << printMBBReference(*\1)/g'
* find . \( -name "*.mir" -o -name "*.cpp" -o -name "*.h" -o -name "*.ll" \) -type f -print0 | xargs -0 sed -i '' -E 's/BB#" << ([a-zA-Z0-9_]+)\.getNumber\(\)/" << printMBBReference(\1)/g'
* find . \( -name "*.txt" -o -name "*.s" -o -name "*.mir" -o -name "*.cpp" -o -name "*.h" -o -name "*.ll" \) -type f -print0 | xargs -0 sed -i '' -E 's/BB#([0-9]+)/%bb.\1/g'
* grep -nr 'BB#' and fix
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D40422
llvm-svn: 319665
Summary:
Previously we were creating the flag result with MVT::Other which is interpretted as a Chain node. If we used a memory form of the instruction we would end up with a copyToReg that consumed the chain result of the adcx instruction instead of the flag result.
Pretty sure we should be using MVT::i32 here, that's what we do other places we create these node types.
We should probably consider this for 5.0 as well.
Reviewers: RKSimon, zvi, spatel
Reviewed By: RKSimon
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D36645
llvm-svn: 310784
Craig Topper