I noticed unnecessary 'sbb' instructions in D30472 and while looking at 'ptest' codegen recently.
This happens because we were transforming any 'setb' - even when we only wanted a single-bit result.
This patch moves those transforms under visitAdd/visitSub, so we we're only creating sbb/adc when it
is a win. I don't know why we need a SETCC_CARRY node type, but I'm not proposing to change that
existing behavior in this patch.
Also, I'm skeptical that sbb/adc are a win for all micro-arches, so I added comments to the test files
where this transform still fires.
The test changes here are all cases where we no longer produce sbb/adc. Avoiding partial register
stalls (generating an xor to clear a register) is not handled in some cases, but that's a separate
issue.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D30611
llvm-svn: 297586
While legalizing a 64-bit shift left by 1, the following occurs:
We split the shift operand in half: a high half and a low half.
We then create an ADDC with the low half and a ADDE with the high half +
the carry bit from the ADDC.
This is problematic if X is any_ext'd because the high half computation
is now undef + undef + carry bit and there is no way to ensure that the
two undef values had the same bitwise representation. This results in
the lowest bit in the high half turning into garbage.
Instead, do not try to turn shifts into arithmetic during type
legalization.
This fixes PR26350.
llvm-svn: 259065
Sanjay Patel