As it's causing some bot failures (and per request from kbarton).
This reverts commit r358543/ab70da07286e618016e78247e4a24fcb84077fda.
llvm-svn: 358546
add A, sext(B) --> sub A, zext(B)
We have to choose 1 of these forms, so I'm opting for the
zext because that's easier for value tracking.
The backend should be prepared for this change after:
D57401
rL353433
This is also a preliminary step towards reducing the amount
of bit hackery that we do in IR to optimize icmp/select.
That should be waiting to happen at a later optimization stage.
The seeming regression in the fuzzer test was discussed in:
D58359
We were only managing that fold in instcombine by luck, and
other passes should be able to deal with that better anyway.
llvm-svn: 354748
We should choose one of these as canonical:
%z = zext i1 %cmp to i32
%r = sub i32 %x, %z
=>
%s = sext i1 %cmp to i32
%r = add i32 %x, %s
The test comments assume that the zext form is better,
but we can adjust that if we decide to go the other way.
llvm-svn: 352515
There's a patchwork of existing transforms trying to handle
these cases, but as seen in the changed test, we weren't
catching them all.
llvm-svn: 333845
The code was actually correct. Sorry for the confusion. I have expanded the
comment saying why the analysis is valid to avoid me misunderstaning it
again in the future.
llvm-svn: 210052
This update was done with the following bash script:
find test/Transforms -name "*.ll" | \
while read NAME; do
echo "$NAME"
if ! grep -q "^; *RUN: *llc" $NAME; then
TEMP=`mktemp -t temp`
cp $NAME $TEMP
sed -n "s/^define [^@]*@\([A-Za-z0-9_]*\)(.*$/\1/p" < $NAME | \
while read FUNC; do
sed -i '' "s/;\(.*\)\([A-Za-z0-9_]*\):\( *\)@$FUNC\([( ]*\)\$/;\1\2-LABEL:\3@$FUNC(/g" $TEMP
done
mv $TEMP $NAME
fi
done
llvm-svn: 186268
// C - zext(bool) -> bool ? C - 1 : C
if (ZExtInst *ZI = dyn_cast<ZExtInst>(Op1))
if (ZI->getSrcTy()->isIntegerTy(1))
return SelectInst::Create(ZI->getOperand(0), SubOne(C), C);
This ends up forming sext i1 instructions that codegen to terrible code. e.g.
int blah(_Bool x, _Bool y) {
return (x - y) + 1;
}
=>
movzbl %dil, %eax
movzbl %sil, %ecx
shll $31, %ecx
sarl $31, %ecx
leal 1(%rax,%rcx), %eax
ret
Without the rule, llvm now generates:
movzbl %sil, %ecx
movzbl %dil, %eax
incl %eax
subl %ecx, %eax
ret
It also helps with ARM (and pretty much any target that doesn't have a sext i1 :-).
The transformation was done as part of Eli's r75531. He has given the ok to
remove it.
rdar://11748024
llvm-svn: 159230
(I think it's reasonably clear that we want to have a canonical form for
constructs like this; if anyone thinks that a select is not the best
canonical form, please tell me.)
llvm-svn: 75531
Eric Christopher