The IPM sequence currently generated to compute the strcmp/memcmp
result will return INT_MIN for the "less than zero" case. While
this is in compliance with the standard, strictly speaking, it
turns out that common applications cannot handle this, e.g. because
they negate a comparison result in order to implement reverse
compares.
This patch changes code to use a different sequence that will result
in -2 for the "less than zero" case (same as GCC). However, this
requires that the two source operands of the compare instructions
are inverted, which breaks the optimization in removeIPMBasedCompare.
Therefore, I've removed this (and all of optimizeCompareInstr), and
replaced it with a mostly equivalent optimization in combineCCMask
at the DAGcombine level.
llvm-svn: 353304
Return is now considered a predicable instruction, and is converted
to a newly-added CondReturn (which maps to BCR to %r14) instruction by
the if conversion pass.
Also, fused compare-and-branch transform knows about conditional
returns, emitting the proper fused instructions for them.
This transform triggers on a *lot* of tests, hence the huge diffstat.
The changes are mostly jX to br %r14 -> bXr %r14.
Author: koriakin
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D17339
llvm-svn: 265689
Generalize r188163 to cope with return types other than MVT::i32, just
as the existing visitMemCmpCall code did. I've split this out into a
subroutine so that it can be used for other upcoming patches.
I also noticed that I'd used the wrong API to record the out chain.
It's a load that uses DAG.getRoot() rather than getRoot(), so the out
chain should go on PendingLoads. I don't have a testcase for that because
we don't do any interesting scheduling on z yet.
llvm-svn: 188540
r188163 used CLC to implement memcmp. Code that compares the result
directly against zero can test the CC value produced by CLC, but code
that needs an integer result must use IPM. The sequence I'd used was:
ipm <reg>
sll <reg>, 2
sra <reg>, 30
but I'd forgotten that this inverts the order, so that CC==1 ("less")
becomes an integer greater than zero, and CC==2 ("greater") becomes
an integer less than zero. This sequence should only be used if the
CLC arguments are reversed to compensate. The problem then is that
the branch condition must also be reversed when testing the CLC
result directly.
Rather than do that, I went for a different sequence that works with
the natural CLC order:
ipm <reg>
srl <reg>, 28
rll <reg>, <reg>, 31
One advantage of this is that it doesn't clobber CC. A disadvantage
is that any sign extension to 64 bits must be done separately,
rather than being folded into the shifts.
llvm-svn: 188538
Ulrich Weigand