This is no-functional-change-intended although there could
be intermediate variations caused by a difference in the
debug info produced by setting that from the builder's
insertion point.
I'm updating the IR test file associated with this code just
to show that the naming differences from using the builder
are visible.
The motivation for adding a helper function is that we are
likely to extend this code to deal with other overflow ops.
llvm-svn: 353056
There are 2 changes visible here:
1. There's no reason to limit this transform based on number
of condition registers. That diff allows PPC to produce
slightly better (dot-instructions should be generally good)
code.
Note: someone that cares about PPC codegen might want to
look closer at that output because it seems like we could
still improve this.
2. We (probably?) should not bother trying to form uaddo (or
other overflow ops) when there's no target support for such
an op. This goes beyond checking whether the op is expanded
because both PPC and AArch64 show better codegen for standard
types regardless of whether the op is legal/custom.
llvm-svn: 353001
This is the most important uaddo problem mentioned in PR31754:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=31754
...but that was overcome in x86 codegen with D57637.
That patch also corrects the inc vs. add regressions seen with the previous attempt at this.
Still, we want to make this matcher complete, so we can potentially canonicalize the pattern
even if it's an 'add 1' operation.
Pattern matching, however, shouldn't assume that we have canonicalized IR, so we match 4
commuted variants of uaddo.
There's also a test with a crazy type to show that the existing CGP transform based on this
matcher is not limited by target legality checks.
I'm not sure if the Hexagon diff means the test is no longer testing what it intended to
test, but that should be solvable in a follow-up.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D57516
llvm-svn: 352998
Sanjay Patel