Fix assertion error
```
bool llvm::MachineOperand::isRenamable() const: Assertion `Register::isPhysicalRegister(getReg()) && "isRenamable should only be checked on physical registers"' failed.
```
by checking if the register is 0 before invoking `isRenamable`.
Summary:
This patch mainly do such transformation
```
$R0 = OP ...
... // No read/clobber of $R0 and $R1
$R1 = COPY $R0 // $R0 is killed
```
Replace $R0 with $R1 and remove the COPY, we have
```
$R1 = OP ...
```
This transformation can also expose more opportunities for existing
copy elimination in MCP.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D67794
Most of the test changes are trivial instruction reorderings and differing
register allocations, without any obvious performance impact.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D66973
llvm-svn: 372106
When not optimizing for minimum size (-Oz) we custom lower wide shifts
(SHL_PARTS, SRA_PARTS, SRL_PARTS) instead of expanding to a libcall.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D59477
llvm-svn: 358498
This restores support for selecting the SLLW/SRLW/SRAW instructions, which was
removed in rL348067 as the previous patterns made some unsafe assumptions.
Also see the related llvm-dev discussion
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2018-December/128497.html>
Ultimately I didn't introduce a custom SelectionDAG node, but instead added a
DAG combine that inserts an AssertZext i5 on the shift amount for an i32
variable-length shift and also added an ANY_EXTEND DAG-combine which will
instead produce a SIGN_EXTEND for an i32 variable-length shift, increasing the
opportunity to safely select SLLW/SRLW/SRAW.
There are obviously different ways of addressing this (a number discussed in
the llvm-dev thread), so I'd welcome further feedback and comments.
Note that there are now some cases in
test/CodeGen/RISCV/rv64i-exhaustive-w-insts.ll where sraw/srlw/sllw is
selected even though sra/srl/sll could be used without any extra instructions.
Given both are semantically equivalent, there doesn't seem a good reason to
prefer one vs the other. Given that would require more logic to still select
sra/srl/sll in those cases, I've left it preferring the *w variants.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D56264
llvm-svn: 350992
As noted by Eli Friedman <https://reviews.llvm.org/D52977?id=168629#1315291>,
the RV64I shift patterns for SLLW/SRLW/SRAW make some incorrect assumptions.
SRAW assumed that (sext_inreg foo, i32) could only be produced when
sign-extended an i32. However, it can be produced by input such as:
define i64 @tricky_ashr(i64 %a, i64 %b) {
%1 = shl i64 %a, 32
%2 = ashr i64 %1, 32
%3 = ashr i64 %2, %b
ret i64 %3
}
It's important not to select sraw in the above case, because sraw only uses
bits lower 5 bits from the shift, while a shift of 32-63 would be valid.
Similarly, the patterns for srlw assumed (and foo, 0xffffffff) would only be
produced when zero-extending a value that was originally i32 in LLVM IR. This
is obviously incorrect.
This patch removes the SLLW/SRLW/SRAW shift patterns for the time being and
adds test cases that would demonstrate a miscompile if the incorrect patterns
were re-added.
llvm-svn: 348067
As discussed in the RFC
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2018-October/126690.html>, 64-bit
RISC-V has i64 as the only legal integer type. This patch introduces patterns
to support codegen of the new instructions
introduced in RV64I: addiw, addiw, subw, sllw, slliw, srlw, srliw, sraw,
sraiw, ld, sd.
Custom selection code is needed for srliw as SimplifyDemandedBits will remove
lower bits from the mask, meaning the obvious pattern won't work:
def : Pat<(sext_inreg (srl (and GPR:$rs1, 0xffffffff), uimm5:$shamt), i32),
(SRLIW GPR:$rs1, uimm5:$shamt)>;
This is sufficient to compile and execute all of the GCC torture suite for
RV64I other than those files using frameaddr or returnaddr intrinsics
(LegalizeDAG doesn't know how to promote the operands - a future patch
addresses this).
When promoting i32 sltu/sltiu operands, it would be more efficient to use
sign-extension rather than zero-extension for RV64. A future patch adds a hook
to allow this.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D52977
llvm-svn: 347973
Craig Topper