This is a repeat of 1880092722 from 2009. We should have less risk
of hitting bugs at this point because we auto-generate positive CHECK
lines only, but this makes things consistent.
Copying the original commit msg:
"Change tests from "opt %s" to "opt < %s" so that opt doesn't see the
input filename so that opt doesn't print the input filename in the
output so that grep lines in the tests don't unintentionally match
strings in the input filename."
In this pattern, all the "magic" bits that we'd `add` are all
high sign bits, and in the value we'd be adding to they are all unset,
not unexpectedly, so we can have an `or` there:
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/ups
It is possible that `haveNoCommonBitsSet()` should be taught about this
pattern so that we never have an `add` variant, but the reasoning would
need to be recursive (because of that `select`), so i'm not really sure
that would be worth it just yet.
llvm-svn: 375378
In this pattern, all the "magic" bits that we'd add are all
high sign bits, and in the value we'd be adding to they are all unset,
not unexpectedly, so we can have an `or` there:
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/ups
llvm-svn: 375377
This can come up in Bit Stream abstractions.
The pattern looks big/scary, but it can't be simplified any further.
It only is so simple because a number of my preparatory folds had
happened already (shift amount reassociation / shift amount
reassociation in bit test, sign bit test detection).
Highlights:
* There are two main flavors: https://rise4fun.com/Alive/zWi
The difference is add vs. sub, and left-shift of -1 vs. 1
* Since we only change the shift opcode,
we can preserve the exact-ness: https://rise4fun.com/Alive/4u4
* There can be truncation after high-bit-extraction:
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/slHc1 (the main pattern i'm after!)
Which means that we need to ignore zext of shift amounts and of NBits.
* The sign-extending magic can be extended itself (in add pattern
via sext, in sub pattern via zext. not the other way around!)
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/NhG
(or those sext/zext can be sinked into `select`!)
Which again means we should pay attention when matching NBits.
* We can have both truncation of extraction and widening of magic:
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/XTw
In other words, i don't believe we need to have any checks on
bitwidths of any of these constructs.
This is worsened in general by the fact that we may have `sext` instead
of `zext` for shift amounts, and we don't yet canonicalize to `zext`,
although we should. I have not done anything about that here.
Also, we really should have something to weed out `sub` like these,
by folding them into `add` variant.
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=42389
llvm-svn: 373964
Sanjay Patel