In post-commit review, Eric Christopher notes that many
new MSan warnings are being observed with this patch.
The probable reason is: if 'y' is undef here and we could
evaluate it twice and get different results.
We can't increase the number of uses of a value.
llvm-svn: 333631
Summary:
Finally fixes [[ https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6773 | PR6773 ]].
Now that the backend is all done, we can finally fold it!
The canonical unfolded masked merge pattern is
```(x & m) | (y & ~m)```
There is a second, equivalent variant:
```(x | ~m) & (y | m)```
Only one of them (the or-of-and's i think) is canonical.
And if the mask is not a constant, we should fold it to:
```((x ^ y) & M) ^ y```
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/ndQw
Reviewers: spatel, craig.topper
Reviewed By: spatel
Subscribers: nicholas, RKSimon, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D46814
llvm-svn: 333106
Summary:
In order to get the whole fold as specified in [[ https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6773 | PR6773 ]],
let's first handle the simple straight-forward things.
Let's start with the `and` -> `or` simplification.
The one obvious thing missing here: the constant mask is not handled.
I have an idea how to handle it, but it will require some thinking,
and is not strictly required here, so i've left that for later.
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/Pkmg
Reviewers: spatel, craig.topper, eli.friedman, jingyue
Reviewed By: spatel
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D45631
llvm-svn: 330101
(and plain 'or', for completeness sake.)
After submitting D45631, i have realized that it will *already*
affect 'and' pattern, and it was obvious that there were no
good test patterns to show that.
Since the masked-merge.ll is getting kinda big,
unify naming schemes a bit, and split into 'xor'/'and'/'or'
testfiles, with the only difference being the last operation.
llvm-svn: 330072
Roman Lebedev