-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 14.3k
[InstCombine] Refactor matchFunnelShift to allow more pattern (NFC) #68474
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Merged
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
2 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
What is the rationale for this check? Isn't it covered by the matching of logical shifts?
But either way, if it is indeed useful, can you invert it and early return to keep nested scopes down.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
We need to match either
or (shl %x, 16) (shr %y, 16)
or (shl %x, 16) (zext %y)
if (isa(Or0) && isa(Or1)) is used to filter in first case and that is the original code matched.
68ab662 filters in second case.
If we want to further reduce nested scopes. We may need to split this function to several static functions to match each case, but this requires to pass some args and may not be concise.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This code seems new? Not that its wrong or anything.
But either way don't understand why it can't be an early return. If we don't enter the
if
FShiftArgs
will be null and we will return anyways.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I added this if statement in this patch.
It can be early returned in this patch, but I'd like to add another else if on 5b3b1bb. If I removed this if statement, then I need to add the if back and indent the code in the if statement on #68502. This make the diff not clear.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Okay fair enough.