tree 059dc1bd2eae78025faa5fd415ce080f1bcf58d4
parent 3b1d40d0cd99a056efc53e3728287a6ad39950ec
author Alex Bradbury <asb@lowrisc.org> 1547278351 +0000
committer Alex Bradbury <asb@lowrisc.org> 1547278351 +0000

[RISCV] Add patterns for RV64I SLLW/SRLW/SRAW instructions

This restores support for selecting the SLLW/SRLW/SRAW instructions, which was
removed in rL348067 as the previous patterns made some unsafe assumptions.
Also see the related llvm-dev discussion
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2018-December/128497.html>

Ultimately I didn't introduce a custom SelectionDAG node, but instead added a
DAG combine that inserts an AssertZext i5 on the shift amount for an i32
variable-length shift and also added an ANY_EXTEND DAG-combine which will
instead produce a SIGN_EXTEND for an i32 variable-length shift, increasing the
opportunity to safely select SLLW/SRLW/SRAW.

There are obviously different ways of addressing this (a number discussed in
the llvm-dev thread), so I'd welcome further feedback and comments.

Note that there are now some cases in
test/CodeGen/RISCV/rv64i-exhaustive-w-insts.ll where sraw/srlw/sllw is
selected even though sra/srl/sll could be used without any extra instructions.
Given both are semantically equivalent, there doesn't seem a good reason to
prefer one vs the other. Given that would require more logic to still select
sra/srl/sll in those cases, I've left it preferring the *w variants.

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D56264


git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@350992 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8