While we have successfully implemented a funclet-oriented EH scheme on
top of LLVM IR, our scheme has some notable deficiencies:
- catchendpad and cleanupendpad are necessary in the current design
but they are difficult to explain to others, even to seasoned LLVM
experts.
- catchendpad and cleanupendpad are optimization barriers. They cannot
be split and force all potentially throwing call-sites to be invokes.
This has a noticable effect on the quality of our code generation.
- catchpad, while similar in some aspects to invoke, is fairly awkward.
It is unsplittable, starts a funclet, and has control flow to other
funclets.
- The nesting relationship between funclets is currently a property of
control flow edges. Because of this, we are forced to carefully
analyze the flow graph to see if there might potentially exist illegal
nesting among funclets. While we have logic to clone funclets when
they are illegally nested, it would be nicer if we had a
representation which forbade them upfront.
Let's clean this up a bit by doing the following:
- Instead, make catchpad more like cleanuppad and landingpad: no control
flow, just a bunch of simple operands; catchpad would be splittable.
- Introduce catchswitch, a control flow instruction designed to model
the constraints of funclet oriented EH.
- Make funclet scoping explicit by having funclet instructions consume
the token produced by the funclet which contains them.
- Remove catchendpad and cleanupendpad. Their presence can be inferred
implicitly using coloring information.
N.B. The state numbering code for the CLR has been updated but the
veracity of it's output cannot be spoken for. An expert should take a
look to make sure the results are reasonable.
Reviewers: rnk, JosephTremoulet, andrew.w.kaylor
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D15139
llvm-svn: 255422
Summary:
This change makes the `isImpliedCondition` interface similar to the rest
of the functions in ValueTracking (in that it takes a DataLayout,
AssumptionCache etc.). This is an NFC, intended to make a later diff
less noisy.
Depends on D14369
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D14391
llvm-svn: 252333
Follow on to http://reviews.llvm.org/D13074, implementing something pointed out by Sanjoy. His truth table from his comment on that bug summarizes things well:
LHS | RHS | LHS >=s RHS | LHS implies RHS
0 | 0 | 1 (0 >= 0) | 1
0 | 1 | 1 (0 >= -1) | 1
1 | 0 | 0 (-1 >= 0) | 0
1 | 1 | 1 (-1 >= -1) | 1
The key point is that an "i1 1" is the value "-1", not "1".
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D13756
llvm-svn: 251597
Summary: This will allow a later patch to `JumpThreading` use this functionality.
Reviewers: reames
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D13971
llvm-svn: 251488
The loop idiom creating a ConstantRange is repeated twice in the
codebase, time to give it a name and a home.
The loop is also repeated in `rangeMetadataExcludesValue`, but using
`getConstantRangeFromMetadata` there would not be an NFC -- the range
returned by `getConstantRangeFromMetadata` may contain a value that none
of the subranges did.
llvm-svn: 251180
First, the motivation: LLVM currently does not realize that:
((2072 >> (L == 0)) >> 7) & 1 == 0
where L is some arbitrary value. Whether you right-shift 2072 by 7 or by 8, the
lowest-order bit is always zero. There are obviously several ways to go about
fixing this, but the generic solution pursued in this patch is to teach
computeKnownBits something about shifts by a non-constant amount. Previously,
we would give up completely on these. Instead, in cases where we know something
about the low-order bits of the shift-amount operand, we can combine (and
together) the associated restrictions for all shift amounts consistent with
that knowledge. As a further generalization, I refactored all of the logic for
all three kinds of shifts to have this capability. This works well in the above
case, for example, because the dynamic shift amount can only be 0 or 1, and
thus we can say a lot about the known bits of the result.
This brings us to the second part of this change: Even when we know all of the
bits of a value via computeKnownBits, nothing used to constant-fold the result.
This introduces the necessary code into InstCombine and InstSimplify. I've
added it into both because:
1. InstCombine won't automatically pick up the associated logic in
InstSimplify (InstCombine uses InstSimplify, but not via the API that
passes in the original instruction).
2. Putting the logic in InstCombine allows the resulting simplifications to become
part of the iterative worklist
3. Putting the logic in InstSimplify allows the resulting simplifications to be
used by everywhere else that calls SimplifyInstruction (inlining, unrolling,
and many others).
And this requires a small change to our definition of an ephemeral value so
that we don't break the rest case from r246696 (where the icmp feeding the
@llvm.assume, is also feeding a br). Under the old definition, the icmp would
not be considered ephemeral (because it is used by the br), but this causes the
assume to remove itself (in addition to simplifying the branch structure), and
it seems more-useful to prevent that from happening.
llvm-svn: 251146
isKnownNonEqual(A, B) returns true if it can be determined that A != B.
At the moment it only knows two facts, that a non-wrapping add of nonzero to a value cannot be that value:
A + B != A [where B != 0, addition is nsw or nuw]
and that contradictory known bits imply two values are not equal.
This patch also hooks this up to InstSimplify; InstSimplify had a peephole for the first fact but not the second so this teaches InstSimplify a new trick too (alas no measured performance impact!)
llvm-svn: 251012
As mentioned in the bug, I'd missed the presence of a getScalarType in the caller of the new implies method. As a result, when we ended up with a implication over two vectors, we'd trip an assert and crash.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D13441
llvm-svn: 249442
This was split off of http://reviews.llvm.org/D13040 to make it easier to test the correctness of the implication logic. For the moment, this only handles a single easy case which shows up when eliminating and combining range checks. In the (near) future, I plan to extend this for other cases which show up in range checks, but I wanted to make those changes incrementally once the framework was in place.
At the moment, the implication logic will be used by three places. One in InstSimplify (this review) and two in SimplifyCFG (http://reviews.llvm.org/D13040 & http://reviews.llvm.org/D13070). Can anyone think of other locations this style of reasoning would make sense?
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D13074
llvm-svn: 248719
Summary:
This is the second part of fixing bug 24848 https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=24848.
If both operands of a comparison have range metadata, they should be used to constant fold the comparison.
Reviewers: sanjoy, hfinkel
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D13177
llvm-svn: 248650
Summary:
This is the first part of fixing bug 24848 https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=24848.
When range metadata is provided, it should be used to constant fold comparisons with constant values.
Reviewers: sanjoy, hfinkel
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D12988
llvm-svn: 248402
Some personality routines require funclet exit points to be clearly
marked, this is done by producing a token at the funclet pad and
consuming it at the corresponding ret instruction. CleanupReturnInst
already had a spot for this operand but CatchReturnInst did not.
Other personality routines don't need to use this which is why it has
been made optional.
llvm-svn: 245149
Any combination of +-inf/+-inf is NaN so it's already ignored with
nnan and we can skip checking for ninf. Also rephrase logic in comments
a bit.
llvm-svn: 239821
There were several SelectInst combines that always returned an existing
instruction instead of modifying an old one or creating a new one.
These are prime candidates for moving to InstSimplify.
llvm-svn: 239229
This change does a few things:
- Move some InstCombine transforms to InstSimplify
- Run SimplifyCall from within InstCombine::visitCallInst
- Teach InstSimplify to fold [us]mul_with_overflow(X, undef) to 0.
llvm-svn: 237995
Now that Intrinsic::ID is a typed enum, we can forward declare it and so return it from this method.
This updates all users which were either using an unsigned to store it, or had a now unnecessary cast.
llvm-svn: 237810
We already had a method to iterate over all the incoming values of a PHI. This just changes all eligible code to use it.
Ineligible code included anything which cared about the index, or was also trying to get the i'th incoming BB.
llvm-svn: 237169
Require the pointee type to be passed explicitly and assert that it is
correct. For now it's possible to pass nullptr here (and I've done so in
a few places in this patch) but eventually that will be disallowed once
all clients have been updated or removed. It'll be a long road to get
all the way there... but if you have the cahnce to update your callers
to pass the type explicitly without depending on a pointer's element
type, that would be a good thing to do soon and a necessary thing to do
eventually.
llvm-svn: 233938
This pushes the use of PointerType::getElementType up into several
callers - I'll essentially just have to keep pushing that up the stack
until I can eliminate every call to it...
llvm-svn: 233604
Summary:
Now that the DataLayout is a mandatory part of the module, let's start
cleaning the codebase. This patch is a first attempt at doing that.
This patch is not exactly NFC as for instance some places were passing
a nullptr instead of the DataLayout, possibly just because there was a
default value on the DataLayout argument to many functions in the API.
Even though it is not purely NFC, there is no change in the
validation.
I turned as many pointer to DataLayout to references, this helped
figuring out all the places where a nullptr could come up.
I had initially a local version of this patch broken into over 30
independant, commits but some later commit were cleaning the API and
touching part of the code modified in the previous commits, so it
seemed cleaner without the intermediate state.
Test Plan:
Reviewers: echristo
Subscribers: llvm-commits
From: Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini@apple.com>
llvm-svn: 231740
Summary:
See the two test cases.
; Can fold fcmp with undef on one side by choosing NaN for the undef
; Can fold fcmp with undef on both side
; fcmp u_pred undef, undef -> true
; fcmp o_pred undef, undef -> false
; because whatever you choose for the first undef
; you can choose NaN for the other undef
Reviewers: hfinkel, chandlerc, majnemer
Reviewed By: majnemer
Subscribers: majnemer, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D7617
From: Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini@apple.com>
llvm-svn: 231626
It is a variation of SimplifyBinOp, but it takes into account
FastMathFlags.
It is needed in inliner and loop-unroller to accurately predict the
transformation's outcome (previously we dropped the flags and were too
conservative in some cases).
Example:
float foo(float *a, float b) {
float r;
if (a[1] * b)
r = /* a lot of expensive computations */;
else
r = 1;
return r;
}
float boo(float *a) {
return foo(a, 0.0);
}
Without this patch, we don't inline 'foo' into 'boo'.
llvm-svn: 228432
This patch folds fcmp in some cases of interest in Julia. The patch adds a function CannotBeOrderedLessThanZero that returns true if a value is provably not less than zero. I.e. the function returns true if the value is provably -0, +0, positive, or a NaN. The patch extends InstructionSimplify.cpp to fold instances of fcmp where:
- the predicate is olt or uge
- the first operand is provably not less than zero
- the second operand is zero
The motivation for handling these cases optimizing away domain checks for sqrt in Julia for common idioms such as sqrt(x*x+y*y)..
http://reviews.llvm.org/D6972
llvm-svn: 227298
a cache of assumptions for a single function, and an immutable pass that
manages those caches.
The motivation for this change is two fold. Immutable analyses are
really hacks around the current pass manager design and don't exist in
the new design. This is usually OK, but it requires that the core logic
of an immutable pass be reasonably partitioned off from the pass logic.
This change does precisely that. As a consequence it also paves the way
for the *many* utility functions that deal in the assumptions to live in
both pass manager worlds by creating an separate non-pass object with
its own independent API that they all rely on. Now, the only bits of the
system that deal with the actual pass mechanics are those that actually
need to deal with the pass mechanics.
Once this separation is made, several simplifications become pretty
obvious in the assumption cache itself. Rather than using a set and
callback value handles, it can just be a vector of weak value handles.
The callers can easily skip the handles that are null, and eventually we
can wrap all of this up behind a filter iterator.
For now, this adds boiler plate to the various passes, but this kind of
boiler plate will end up making it possible to port these passes to the
new pass manager, and so it will end up factored away pretty reasonably.
llvm-svn: 225131
(X & INT_MIN) ? X & INT_MAX : X into X & INT_MAX
(X & INT_MIN) ? X : X & INT_MAX into X
(X & INT_MIN) ? X | INT_MIN : X into X
(X & INT_MIN) ? X : X | INT_MIN into X | INT_MIN
llvm-svn: 224669
We can always choose an value for undef which might cause %V to shift
out an important bit except for one case, when %V is zero.
However, shl behaves like an identity function when the right hand side
is zero.
llvm-svn: 224405
Reapply r223347, with a fix to not crash on uninserted instructions (or more
precisely, instructions in uninserted blocks). bugpoint was able to reduce the
test case somewhat, but it is still somewhat large (and relies on setting
things up to be simplified during inlining), so I've not included it here.
Nevertheless, it is clear what is going on and why.
Original commit message:
Restrict somewhat the memory-allocation pointer cmp opt from r223093
Based on review comments from Richard Smith, restrict this optimization from
applying to globals that might resolve lazily to other dynamically-loaded
modules, and also from dynamic allocas (which might be transformed into malloc
calls). In short, take extra care that the compared-to pointer is really
simultaneously live with the memory allocation.
llvm-svn: 223371
Based on review comments from Richard Smith, restrict this optimization from
applying to globals that might resolve lazily to other dynamically-loaded
modules, and also from dynamic allocas (which might be transformed into malloc
calls). In short, take extra care that the compared-to pointer is really
simultaneously live with the memory allocation.
llvm-svn: 223347
System memory allocation functions, which are identified at the IR level by the
noalias attribute on the return value, must return a pointer into a memory region
disjoint from any other memory accessible to the caller. We can use this
property to simplify pointer comparisons between allocated memory and local
stack addresses and the addresses of global variables. Neither the stack nor
global variables can overlap with the region used by the memory allocator.
Fixes PR21556.
llvm-svn: 223093
This restores our ability to optimize:
(X & C) ? X & ~C : X into X & ~C
(X & C) ? X : X & ~C into X
(X & C) ? X | C : X into X
(X & C) ? X : X | C into X | C
llvm-svn: 222868
This handles cases where we are comparing a masked value against itself.
The analysis could be further improved by making it recursive but such
expense is not currently justified.
llvm-svn: 222716
This is to be consistent with StringSet and ultimately with the standard
library's associative container insert function.
This lead to updating SmallSet::insert to return pair<iterator, bool>,
and then to update SmallPtrSet::insert to return pair<iterator, bool>,
and then to update all the existing users of those functions...
llvm-svn: 222334
A few things:
- computeKnownBits is relatively expensive, let's delay its use as long
as we can.
- Don't create two APInt values just to run computeKnownBits on a
ConstantInt, we already know the exact value!
- Avoid creating a temporary APInt value in order to calculate unary
negation.
llvm-svn: 222092
Exact shifts may not shift out any non-zero bits. Use computeKnownBits
to determine when this occurs and just return the left hand side.
This fixes PR21477.
llvm-svn: 221325
consider:
C1 = INT_MIN
C2 = -1
C1 * C2 overflows without a doubt but consider the following:
%x = i32 INT_MIN
This means that (%X /s C1) is 1 and (%X /s C1) /s C2 is -1.
N. B. Move the unsigned version of this transform to InstSimplify, it
doesn't create any new instructions.
This fixes PR21243.
llvm-svn: 219567
Some ICmpInsts when anded/ored with another ICmpInst trivially reduces
to true or false depending on whether or not all integers or no integers
satisfy the intersected/unioned range.
This sort of trivial looking code can come about when InstCombine
performs a range reduction-type operation on sdiv and the like.
This fixes PR20916.
llvm-svn: 217750
This change, which allows @llvm.assume to be used from within computeKnownBits
(and other associated functions in ValueTracking), adds some (optional)
parameters to computeKnownBits and friends. These functions now (optionally)
take a "context" instruction pointer, an AssumptionTracker pointer, and also a
DomTree pointer, and most of the changes are just to pass this new information
when it is easily available from InstSimplify, InstCombine, etc.
As explained below, the significant conceptual change is that known properties
of a value might depend on the control-flow location of the use (because we
care that the @llvm.assume dominates the use because assumptions have
control-flow dependencies). This means that, when we ask if bits are known in a
value, we might get different answers for different uses.
The significant changes are all in ValueTracking. Two main changes: First, as
with the rest of the code, new parameters need to be passed around. To make
this easier, I grouped them into a structure, and I made internal static
versions of the relevant functions that take this structure as a parameter. The
new code does as you might expect, it looks for @llvm.assume calls that make
use of the value we're trying to learn something about (often indirectly),
attempts to pattern match that expression, and uses the result if successful.
By making use of the AssumptionTracker, the process of finding @llvm.assume
calls is not expensive.
Part of the structure being passed around inside ValueTracking is a set of
already-considered @llvm.assume calls. This is to prevent a query using, for
example, the assume(a == b), to recurse on itself. The context and DT params
are used to find applicable assumptions. An assumption needs to dominate the
context instruction, or come after it deterministically. In this latter case we
only handle the specific case where both the assumption and the context
instruction are in the same block, and we need to exclude assumptions from
being used to simplify their own ephemeral values (those which contribute only
to the assumption) because otherwise the assumption would prove its feeding
comparison trivial and would be removed.
This commit adds the plumbing and the logic for a simple masked-bit propagation
(just enough to write a regression test). Future commits add more patterns
(and, correspondingly, more regression tests).
llvm-svn: 217342
Several combines involving icmp (shl C2, %X) C1 can be simplified
without introducing any new instructions. Move them to InstSimplify;
while we are at it, make them more powerful.
llvm-svn: 216642
It's incorrect to perform this simplification if the types differ.
A bitcast would need to be inserted for this to work.
This fixes PR20771.
llvm-svn: 216597
'shl nuw CI, x' produces [CI, CI << CLZ(CI)]
'shl nsw CI, x' produces [CI << CLO(CI)-1, CI] if CI is negative
'shl nsw CI, x' produces [CI, CI << CLZ(CI)-1] if CI is non-negative
llvm-svn: 216570
consider:
long long *f(long long *b, long long *e) {
return b + (e - b);
}
we would lower this to something like:
define i64* @f(i64* %b, i64* %e) {
%1 = ptrtoint i64* %e to i64
%2 = ptrtoint i64* %b to i64
%3 = sub i64 %1, %2
%4 = ashr exact i64 %3, 3
%5 = getelementptr inbounds i64* %b, i64 %4
ret i64* %5
}
This should fold away to just 'e'.
N.B. This adds m_SpecificInt as a convenient way to match against a
particular 64-bit integer when using LLVM's match interface.
llvm-svn: 216439
If the NUW bit is set for 0 - Y, we know that all values for Y other
than 0 would produce a poison value. This allows us to replace (0 - Y)
with 0 in the expression (X - (0 - Y)) which will ultimately leave us
with X.
This partially fixes PR20189.
llvm-svn: 214384
Earlier when the code was in InstCombine, we were calling the version of ComputeNumSignBits in InstCombine.h
that automatically added the DataLayout* before calling into ValueTracking.
When the code moved to InstSimplify, we are calling into ValueTracking directly without passing in the DataLayout*.
This patch rectifies the same by passing DataLayout in ComputeNumSignBits.
llvm-svn: 213295
Refactor code, no functionality change, test case moved from instcombine to instsimplify.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D4102
llvm-svn: 213231
Determining the bounds of x/ -1 would start off with us dividing it by
INT_MIN. Suffice to say, this would not work very well.
Instead, handle it upfront by checking for -1 and mapping it to the
range: [INT_MIN + 1, INT_MAX. This means that the result of our
division can be any value other than INT_MIN.
llvm-svn: 212981
Summary:
When calculating the upper bound of X / -8589934592, we would perform
the following calculation: Floor[INT_MAX / 8589934592]
However, flooring the result would make us wrongly come to the
conclusion that 1073741824 was not in the set of possible values.
Instead, use the ceiling of the result.
Reviewers: nicholas
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D4502
llvm-svn: 212976
When INT_MIN is the numerator in a sdiv, we would not properly handle
overflow when calculating the bounds of possible values; abs(INT_MIN) is
not a meaningful number.
Instead, check and handle INT_MIN by reasoning that the largest value is
INT_MIN/-2 and the smallest value is INT_MIN.
This fixes PR20199.
llvm-svn: 212307
Summary:
Analyze the range of values produced by ashr/lshr cst, %V when it is
being used in an icmp.
Reviewers: nicholas
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D3774
llvm-svn: 209000
Summary:
The dividend in an sdiv tells us the largest and smallest possible
results. Use this fact to optimize comparisons against an sdiv with a
constant dividend.
Reviewers: nicholas
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D3795
llvm-svn: 208999
definition below all the header #include lines, lib/Analysis/...
edition.
This one has a bit extra as there were *other* #define's before #include
lines in addition to DEBUG_TYPE. I've sunk all of them as a block.
llvm-svn: 206843
This requires a number of steps.
1) Move value_use_iterator into the Value class as an implementation
detail
2) Change it to actually be a *Use* iterator rather than a *User*
iterator.
3) Add an adaptor which is a User iterator that always looks through the
Use to the User.
4) Wrap these in Value::use_iterator and Value::user_iterator typedefs.
5) Add the range adaptors as Value::uses() and Value::users().
6) Update *all* of the callers to correctly distinguish between whether
they wanted a use_iterator (and to explicitly dig out the User when
needed), or a user_iterator which makes the Use itself totally
opaque.
Because #6 requires churning essentially everything that walked the
Use-Def chains, I went ahead and added all of the range adaptors and
switched them to range-based loops where appropriate. Also because the
renaming requires at least churning every line of code, it didn't make
any sense to split these up into multiple commits -- all of which would
touch all of the same lies of code.
The result is still not quite optimal. The Value::use_iterator is a nice
regular iterator, but Value::user_iterator is an iterator over User*s
rather than over the User objects themselves. As a consequence, it fits
a bit awkwardly into the range-based world and it has the weird
extra-dereferencing 'operator->' that so many of our iterators have.
I think this could be fixed by providing something which transforms
a range of T&s into a range of T*s, but that *can* be separated into
another patch, and it isn't yet 100% clear whether this is the right
move.
However, this change gets us most of the benefit and cleans up
a substantial amount of code around Use and User. =]
llvm-svn: 203364
a bit surprising, as the class is almost entirely abstracted away from
any particular IR, however it encodes the comparsion predicates which
mutate ranges as ICmp predicate codes. This is reasonable as they're
used for both instructions and constants. Thus, it belongs in the IR
library with instructions and constants.
llvm-svn: 202838
Move the test for this class into the IR unittests as well.
This uncovers that ValueMap too is in the IR library. Ironically, the
unittest for ValueMap is useless in the Support library (honestly, so
was the ValueHandle test) and so it already lives in the IR unittests.
Mmmm, tasty layering.
llvm-svn: 202821
name might indicate, it is an iterator over the types in an instruction
in the IR.... You see where this is going.
Another step of modularizing the support library.
llvm-svn: 202815
I am really sorry for the noise, but the current state where some parts of the
code use TD (from the old name: TargetData) and other parts use DL makes it
hard to write a patch that changes where those variables come from and how
they are passed along.
llvm-svn: 201827
directory. These passes are already defined in the IR library, and it
doesn't make any sense to have the headers in Analysis.
Long term, I think there is going to be a much better way to divide
these matters. The dominators code should be fully separated into the
abstract graph algorithm and have that put in Support where it becomes
obvious that evn Clang's CFGBlock's can use it. Then the verifier can
manually construct dominance information from the Support-driven
interface while the Analysis library can provide a pass which both
caches, reconstructs, and supports a nice update API.
But those are very long term, and so I don't want to leave the really
confusing structure until that day arrives.
llvm-svn: 199082
subsequent changes are easier to review. About to fix some layering
issues, and wanted to separate out the necessary churn.
Also comment and sink the include of "Windows.h" in three .inc files to
match the usage in Memory.inc.
llvm-svn: 198685
This is safe per C++11 18.6.1.1p3: [operator new returns] a non-null pointer to
suitably aligned storage (3.7.4), or else throw a bad_alloc exception. This
requirement is binding on a replacement version of this function.
Brings us a tiny bit closer to eliminating more vector push_backs.
llvm-svn: 191310
Overflow doesn't affect the correctness of equalities. Computing this is cheap,
we just reuse the computation for the inbounds case and try to peel of more
non-inbounds GEPs. This pattern is unlikely to ever appear in code generated by
Clang, but SCEV occasionally produces it.
llvm-svn: 191200
All libm floating-point rounding functions, except for round(), had their own
ISD nodes. Recent PowerPC cores have an instruction for round(), and so here I'm
adding ISD::FROUND so that round() can be custom lowered as well.
For the most part, this is straightforward. I've added an intrinsic
and a matching ISD node just like those for nearbyint() and friends. The
SelectionDAG pattern I've named frnd (because ISD::FP_ROUND has already claimed
fround).
This will be used by the PowerPC backend in a follow-up commit.
llvm-svn: 187926
Sanjay Patel