PPCInstrInfo::insertSelect and PPCInstrInfo::canInsertSelect were computing the
common subclass of the true and false inputs, and then selecting either the
32-bit or the 64-bit isel variant based on the result of calling
PPC::GPRCRegClass.hasSubClassEq(RC) and PPC::G8RCRegClass.hasSubClassEq(RC)
(where RC is the common subclass). Unfortunately, this is not quite right: if
we have something like this:
%vreg8<def> = SELECT_CC_I8 %vreg4<kill>, %vreg7<kill>, %vreg6<kill>, 76;
G8RC_and_G8RC_NOX0:%vreg8 CRRC:%vreg4 G8RC_NOX0:%vreg7,%vreg6
then the common subclass of G8RC_and_G8RC_NOX0 and G8RC_NOX0 is G8RC_NOX0, and
G8RC_NOX0 is not a subclass of G8RC (because it also contains the ZERO8
pseudo-register). As a result, we also need to check the common subclass
against GPRC_NOR0 and G8RC_NOX0 explicitly.
This had not been a problem for clients of insertSelect that called
canInsertSelect first (because it had a compensating mistake), but insertSelect
is also used by the PPC pseudo-instruction expander, and this error was causing
a problem in that context.
This problem was found by csmith.
llvm-svn: 186343
Manman Ren