Favor the extended reg patterns over the shifted reg patterns that match
only the operand shift and not the full sign/zero extend and shift.
Details
Details
Diff Detail
Diff Detail
- Repository
- rL LLVM
Event Timeline
Comment Actions
Is this avoiding a shift plus extend sub, for a shift-extend sub?
If so, would be good to add a CHECK-NOT for the extra instructions that you don't want to see.
Otherwise, looks good to me.
Comment Actions
Looks good to me, it's just matching the behaviour for default patterns in InstrFormats as far as I can see and isn't bad for any CPU I know of.
Tim.
Comment Actions
I don't think this would add much to the test since we're already checking for the shift-extend subs. Adding CHECK-NOTs for extra extends or shifts would just be checking that we're not generating redundant code, which doesn't seem to be of much value. Do you agree?