| Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Age | Files | Lines |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
The reversion apparently deleted the test/Transforms directory.
Will be re-reverting again.
llvm-svn: 358552
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
As it's causing some bot failures (and per request from kbarton).
This reverts commit r358543/ab70da07286e618016e78247e4a24fcb84077fda.
llvm-svn: 358546
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
(sub (zext x), (zext y)) --> (zext (sub x, y))
Summary:
If the sub doesn't overflow in the original type we can move it above the sext/zext.
This is similar to what we do for add. The overflow checking for sub is currently weaker than add, so the test cases are constructed for what is supported.
Reviewers: spatel
Reviewed By: spatel
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D52075
llvm-svn: 342335
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Similar to rL342278:
The test diffs are all cosmetic due to the change in
value naming, but I'm including that to show that the
new code does perform these folds rather than something
else in instcombine.
D52075 should be able to use this code too rather than
duplicating all of the logic.
llvm-svn: 342292
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
The test diffs are all cosmetic due to the change in
value naming, but I'm including that to show that the
new code does perform these folds rather than something
else in instcombine.
llvm-svn: 342278
|
|
|
|
| |
llvm-svn: 342274
|
|
The folds are not limited to zext, and the real goal is width
reduction of a math op. D52075 is proposing to extend this to
subtracts.
llvm-svn: 342254
|