| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Summary:
This fixes http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=16439.
This is one possible way to approach this. The other would be to split InL>>(nbits-Amt) into (InL>>(nbits-1-Amt))>>1, which is also valid since since we only need to care about Amt up nbits-1. It's hard to tell which one is better since the shift might be expensive if this stage of expansion is not yet a legal machine integer, whereas comparisons with zero are relatively cheap at all sizes, but more expensive than a shift if the shift is on a legal machine type.
Patch by Keno Fischer!
Test Plan: regression test from http://reviews.llvm.org/D7752
Reviewers: chfast, resistor
Reviewed By: chfast, resistor
Subscribers: sanjoy, resistor, chfast, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D4978
llvm-svn: 235370
|
