Summary:
The one thing of note here is that the 'bitwidth' constant (32/64) was previously pessimistic.
Given `x & (-1 >> (C - z))`, we were taking `C` to be `bitwidth(x)`, but in reality
we want `(-1 >> (C - z))` pattern to mean "low z bits must be all-ones".
And for that, `C` should be `bitwidth(-1 >> (C - z))`, i.e. of the shift operation itself.
Last pattern D does not seem to exhibit any of these truncation issues.
Although it has the opposite problem - if we extract low bits (no shift) from i64,
and then truncate to i32, then we fail to shrink this 64-bit extraction into 32-bit extraction.
Reviewers: RKSimon, craig.topper, spatel
Reviewed By: RKSimon
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D62806
llvm-svn: 364419
fbb2e40d5c