[CodeGen] Print "%vreg0" as "%0" in both MIR and debug output

As part of the unification of the debug format and the MIR format, avoid
printing "vreg" for virtual registers (which is one of the current MIR
possibilities).

Basically:

* find . \( -name "*.mir" -o -name "*.cpp" -o -name "*.h" -o -name "*.ll" \) -type f -print0 | xargs -0 sed -i '' -E "s/%vreg([0-9]+)/%\1/g"
* grep -nr '%vreg' . and fix if needed
* find . \( -name "*.mir" -o -name "*.cpp" -o -name "*.h" -o -name "*.ll" \) -type f -print0 | xargs -0 sed -i '' -E "s/ vreg([0-9]+)/ %\1/g"
* grep -nr 'vreg[0-9]\+' . and fix if needed

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D40420

llvm-svn: 319427

1 files changed, 20 insertions, 20 deletions

diff --git a/llvm/lib/Target/PowerPC/PPCVSXFMAMutate.cpp b/llvm/lib/Target/PowerPC/PPCVSXFMAMutate.cpp
index 80b63b1c9df..4d001c0210d 100644
--- a/llvm/lib/Target/PowerPC/PPCVSXFMAMutate.cpp
+++ b/llvm/lib/Target/PowerPC/PPCVSXFMAMutate.cpp
@@ -90,21 +90,21 @@ protected:
         // This pass is run after register coalescing, and so we're looking for
         // a situation like this:
         //   ...
-        //   %vreg5<def> = COPY %vreg9; VSLRC:%vreg5,%vreg9
-        //   %vreg5<def,tied1> = XSMADDADP %vreg5<tied0>, %vreg17, %vreg16,
-        //                         %rm<imp-use>; VSLRC:%vreg5,%vreg17,%vreg16
+        //   %5<def> = COPY %9; VSLRC:%5,%9
+        //   %5<def,tied1> = XSMADDADP %5<tied0>, %17, %16,
+        //                         %rm<imp-use>; VSLRC:%5,%17,%16
         //   ...
-        //   %vreg9<def,tied1> = XSMADDADP %vreg9<tied0>, %vreg17, %vreg19,
-        //                         %rm<imp-use>; VSLRC:%vreg9,%vreg17,%vreg19
+        //   %9<def,tied1> = XSMADDADP %9<tied0>, %17, %19,
+        //                         %rm<imp-use>; VSLRC:%9,%17,%19
         //   ...
         // Where we can eliminate the copy by changing from the A-type to the
         // M-type instruction. Specifically, for this example, this means:
-        //   %vreg5<def,tied1> = XSMADDADP %vreg5<tied0>, %vreg17, %vreg16,
-        //                         %rm<imp-use>; VSLRC:%vreg5,%vreg17,%vreg16
+        //   %5<def,tied1> = XSMADDADP %5<tied0>, %17, %16,
+        //                         %rm<imp-use>; VSLRC:%5,%17,%16
         // is replaced by:
-        //   %vreg16<def,tied1> = XSMADDMDP %vreg16<tied0>, %vreg18, %vreg9,
-        //                         %rm<imp-use>; VSLRC:%vreg16,%vreg18,%vreg9
-        // and we remove: %vreg5<def> = COPY %vreg9; VSLRC:%vreg5,%vreg9
+        //   %16<def,tied1> = XSMADDMDP %16<tied0>, %18, %9,
+        //                         %rm<imp-use>; VSLRC:%16,%18,%9
+        // and we remove: %5<def> = COPY %9; VSLRC:%5,%9
 
         SlotIndex FMAIdx = LIS->getInstructionIndex(MI);
 
@@ -150,13 +150,13 @@ protected:
         // walking the MIs we may as well test liveness here.
         //
         // FIXME: There is a case that occurs in practice, like this:
-        //   %vreg9<def> = COPY %f1; VSSRC:%vreg9
+        //   %9<def> = COPY %f1; VSSRC:%9
         //   ...
-        //   %vreg6<def> = COPY %vreg9; VSSRC:%vreg6,%vreg9
-        //   %vreg7<def> = COPY %vreg9; VSSRC:%vreg7,%vreg9
-        //   %vreg9<def,tied1> = XSMADDASP %vreg9<tied0>, %vreg1, %vreg4; VSSRC:
-        //   %vreg6<def,tied1> = XSMADDASP %vreg6<tied0>, %vreg1, %vreg2; VSSRC:
-        //   %vreg7<def,tied1> = XSMADDASP %vreg7<tied0>, %vreg1, %vreg3; VSSRC:
+        //   %6<def> = COPY %9; VSSRC:%6,%9
+        //   %7<def> = COPY %9; VSSRC:%7,%9
+        //   %9<def,tied1> = XSMADDASP %9<tied0>, %1, %4; VSSRC:
+        //   %6<def,tied1> = XSMADDASP %6<tied0>, %1, %2; VSSRC:
+        //   %7<def,tied1> = XSMADDASP %7<tied0>, %1, %3; VSSRC:
         // which prevents an otherwise-profitable transformation.
         bool OtherUsers = false, KillsAddendSrc = false;
         for (auto J = std::prev(I), JE = MachineBasicBlock::iterator(AddendMI);
@@ -177,11 +177,11 @@ protected:
 
 
         // The transformation doesn't work well with things like:
-        //    %vreg5 = A-form-op %vreg5, %vreg11, %vreg5;
-        // unless vreg11 is also a kill, so skip when it is not,
+        //    %5 = A-form-op %5, %11, %5;
+        // unless %11 is also a kill, so skip when it is not,
         // and check operand 3 to see it is also a kill to handle the case:
-        //   %vreg5 = A-form-op %vreg5, %vreg5, %vreg11;
-        // where vreg5 and vreg11 are both kills. This case would be skipped
+        //   %5 = A-form-op %5, %5, %11;
+        // where %5 and %11 are both kills. This case would be skipped
         // otherwise.
         unsigned OldFMAReg = MI.getOperand(0).getReg();