Let the sext_inreg be selected to sext.w. Remove unneeded sext.w
during PostProcessISelDAG.
This gives opportunities for some other isel patterns to match
like the ADDIPair or matching mul with immediate to shXadd.
This becomes possible after D107658 started selecting W instructions
based on users. The sext.w will be considered a W user so isel
will often select a W instruction for the sext.w input and we can
just remove the sext.w. Otherwise we can combine the sext.w with
a ADD/SUB/MUL/SLLI to create a new W instruction in parallel
to the the original instruction.
Reviewed By: luismarques
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D107708
We already do this for non-constants RHS. This just removes the
special case. I believe the special case may have been needed
because the ANY_EXTEND of a constant used to create zero extended
constants, but we recently changed that to produce sign extended
constants.
D107658 is needed to prevent some regressions.
Reviewed By: luismarques
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D107697
We normally select these when the root node is a sext_inreg, but
SimplifyDemandedBits can sometimes bypass the sext_inreg for some
users. This can create situation where sext_inreg+add/sub/mul/shl
is selected to a W instruction, and then the add/sub/mul/shl is
separately selected to a non-W instruction with the same inputs.
This patch tries to detect when it would still be ok to use a W
instruction without the sext_inreg by checking the direct users.
This can allow the W instruction to CSE with one created for a
sext_inreg+add/sub/mul/shl. To minimize complexity and cost of
checking, we make no attempt to determine if the CSE will happen
and just always use a W instruction when we can.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D107658
For an addition with an immediate in specific ranges, a pair of
addi-addi can be generated instead of the ordinary lui-addi-add serial.
Reviewed By: MaskRay, luismarques
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D82262
Craig Topper