RISCV has to use 2 shifts for (i64 (zext_inreg X, i32)), but we
can use addiw rd, rs1, x0 for sext_inreg. We already understood this
when type legalizing i32 seteq/ne on rv64. But this transform in
SimplifySetCC would sometimes undo it.
Details
Diff Detail
- Repository
- rG LLVM Github Monorepo
Unit Tests
Event Timeline
llvm/test/CodeGen/RISCV/double-stack-spill-restore.ll | ||
---|---|---|
22 | I'm not familiar with this syntax: is this just a result of running the update_llc_test_checks.py script, and given that call func matches call func@plt it was passing anyway? |
llvm/test/CodeGen/RISCV/double-stack-spill-restore.ll | ||
---|---|---|
22 | Yes, these check lines just predate full PIC support |
Makes sense to me.
@craig.topper are you using the correct clang-format config? Remember to fix the minor formatting issue.
llvm/test/CodeGen/RISCV/double-stack-spill-restore.ll | ||
---|---|---|
22 | What confuses me about this is that @mundaym had fairly recently regenerated all of the tests, which added spill comments and @plt stuff. Why didn't update_llc_test_checks.py add the @plt here then? |
I omitted that clang-format change from my patch because its not really in code I touched. Does clang-format widen its scope to include an else if that I that follows the one I changed?
llvm/test/CodeGen/RISCV/double-stack-spill-restore.ll | ||
---|---|---|
22 | Hm, I would guess 2047c10c22b071cccc57a7e2779d6603512e9113. Adding dso_local to func should make this diff go away, though I don't care which change is made, both are correct and end up testing what we want. |
Oh yeah, nevermind. I had seen your comment (in another review) about your local clang-format giving different results than the clang-format in CI and I jumped the gun when I saw this lint check, assuming it had happened again. I don't know how loose git-clang-format is about formatting only the lines you actually changed.
clang-format not found in user's PATH; not linting file.