Generally, the ISEL is expanded into if-then-else sequence, in some
cases (like when the destination register is the same with the true
or false value register), it may just be expanded into just the if
or else sequence.
llvm-svn: 292154
Generally, the ISEL is expanded into if-then-else sequence, in some
cases (like when the destination register is the same with the true
or false value register), it may just be expanded into just the if
or else sequence.
llvm-svn: 292128
Currently we have a number of tests that fail with -verify-machineinstrs.
To detect this cases earlier we add the option to the testcases with the
exception of tests that will currently fail with this option. PR 27456 keeps
track of this failures.
No code review, as discussed with Hal Finkel.
llvm-svn: 277624
Consider this function from our README.txt file:
int foo(int a, int b) { return (a < b) << 4; }
We now explicitly track CR bits by default, so the comment in the README.txt
about not really having a SETCC is no longer accurate, but we did generate this
somewhat silly code:
cmpw 0, 3, 4
li 3, 0
li 12, 1
isel 3, 12, 3, 0
sldi 3, 3, 4
blr
which generates the zext as a select between 0 and 1, and then shifts the
result by a constant amount. Here we preprocess the DAG in order to fold the
results of operations on an extension of an i1 value into the SELECT_I[48]
pseudo instruction when the resulting constant can be materialized using one
instruction (just like the 0 and 1). This was not implemented as a DAGCombine
because the resulting code would have been anti-canonical and depends on
replacing chained user nodes, which does not fit well into the lowering
paradigm. Now we generate:
cmpw 0, 3, 4
li 3, 0
li 12, 16
isel 3, 12, 3, 0
blr
which is less silly.
llvm-svn: 225203
Tony Jiang