There's likely a missed IR canonicalization for at least 1 of these
patterns. Otherwise, we wouldn't have needed the pattern-matching
enhancement in D57516.
Note that -- unlike usubo added with D57789 -- the TLI hook for
this transform defaults to 'on'. So if there's any perf fallout
from this, targets should look at how they're lowering the uaddo
node in SDAG and/or override that hook.
The x86 diffs suggest that there's some missing pattern-matching
for forming inc/dec.
This should fix the remaining known problems in:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=40486https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=31754
llvm-svn: 354746
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
Summary:
Add an additional combine to combineCarryThroughADD to reverse it back to the C flag to avoid regressions.
I believe this catches the cases that D57547 got.
Reviewers: RKSimon, spatel
Reviewed By: spatel
Subscribers: javed.absar, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D57637
llvm-svn: 352984
This is the most important uaddo problem mentioned in PR31754:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=31754
We were failing to match the canonicalized pattern when 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, but that's a
different problem.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D57516
llvm-svn: 352766
