FailedChanges

Summary

  1. [X86] X86DAGToDAGISel::matchBEXTRFromAndImm(): if can't use BEXTR, fallback to BZHI is profitable (PR43381) Summary: PR43381 notes that while we are good at matching `(X >> C1) & C2` as BEXTR/BEXTRI, we only do that if we either have BEXTRI (TBM), or if BEXTR is marked as being fast (`-mattr=+fast-bextr`). In all other cases we don't match. But that is mainly only true for AMD CPU's. However, for all the CPU's for which we have sched models, the BZHI is always fast (or the sched models are all bad.) So if we decide that it's unprofitable to emit BEXTR/BEXTRI, we should consider falling-back to BZHI if it is available, and follow-up with the shift. While it's really tempting to do something because it's cool it is wise to first think whether it actually makes sense to do. We shouldn't just use BZHI because we can, but only it it is beneficial. In particular, it isn't really worth it if the input is a register, mask is small, or we can fold a load. But it is worth it if the mask does not fit into 32-bits. (careful, i don't know much about intel cpu's, my choice of `-mcpu` may be bad here) Thus we manage to fold a load: https://godbolt.org/z/Er0OQz Or if we'd end up using BZHI anyways because the mask is large: https://godbolt.org/z/dBJ_5h But this isn'r actually profitable in general case, e.g. here we'd increase microop count (the register renaming is free, mca does not model that there it seems) https://godbolt.org/z/k6wFoz Likewise, not worth it if we just get load folding: https://godbolt.org/z/1M1deG https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=43381 Reviewers: RKSimon, craig.topper, davezarzycki, spatel Reviewed By: craig.topper, davezarzycki Subscribers: andreadb, hiraditya, llvm-commits Tags: #llvm Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D67875
  2. [Diagnostics] Warn if ?: with integer constants always evaluates to true Extracted from D63082. GCC has this warning under -Wint-in-bool-context, but as noted in the D63082's review, we should put it under TautologicalConstantCompare.
  3. [clang] fixing conditional explicit for out-of-line definition PR42980 Summary: not every read in CXXConstructorDecl::getExplicitSpecifierInternal() was made on the canonical declaration. Reviewers: rsmith, aaron.ballman Reviewed By: rsmith Subscribers: cfe-commits Tags: #clang Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D67889
Revision 372532 by lebedevri:
[X86] X86DAGToDAGISel::matchBEXTRFromAndImm(): if can't use BEXTR, fallback to BZHI is profitable (PR43381)

Summary:
PR43381 notes that while we are good at matching `(X >> C1) & C2` as BEXTR/BEXTRI,
we only do that if we either have BEXTRI (TBM),
or if BEXTR is marked as being fast (`-mattr=+fast-bextr`).
In all other cases we don't match.

But that is mainly only true for AMD CPU's.
However, for all the CPU's for which we have sched models,
the BZHI is always fast (or the sched models are all bad.)

So if we decide that it's unprofitable to emit BEXTR/BEXTRI,
we should consider falling-back to BZHI if it is available,
and follow-up with the shift.

While it's really tempting to do something because it's cool
it is wise to first think whether it actually makes sense to do.
We shouldn't just use BZHI because we can, but only it it is beneficial.
In particular, it isn't really worth it if the input is a register,
mask is small, or we can fold a load.
But it is worth it if the mask does not fit into 32-bits.

(careful, i don't know much about intel cpu's, my choice of `-mcpu` may be bad here)
Thus we manage to fold a load:
https://godbolt.org/z/Er0OQz
Or if we'd end up using BZHI anyways because the mask is large:
https://godbolt.org/z/dBJ_5h
But this isn'r actually profitable in general case,
e.g. here we'd increase microop count
(the register renaming is free, mca does not model that there it seems)
https://godbolt.org/z/k6wFoz
Likewise, not worth it if we just get load folding:
https://godbolt.org/z/1M1deG

https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=43381

Reviewers: RKSimon, craig.topper, davezarzycki, spatel

Reviewed By: craig.topper, davezarzycki

Subscribers: andreadb, hiraditya, llvm-commits

Tags: #llvm

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D67875
Change TypePath in RepositoryPath in Workspace
The file was modified/llvm/trunk/lib/Target/X86/X86ISelDAGToDAG.cpp (diff)llvm.src/lib/Target/X86/X86ISelDAGToDAG.cpp
The file was modified/llvm/trunk/test/CodeGen/X86/bmi-x86_64.ll (diff)llvm.src/test/CodeGen/X86/bmi-x86_64.ll
Revision 372531 by xbolva00:
[Diagnostics] Warn if ?: with integer constants always evaluates to true

Extracted from D63082. GCC has this warning under -Wint-in-bool-context, but as noted in the D63082's review, we should put it under TautologicalConstantCompare.
Change TypePath in RepositoryPath in Workspace
The file was modified/cfe/trunk/include/clang/Basic/DiagnosticSemaKinds.td (diff)clang.src/include/clang/Basic/DiagnosticSemaKinds.td
The file was modified/cfe/trunk/lib/Sema/SemaChecking.cpp (diff)clang.src/lib/Sema/SemaChecking.cpp
The file was added/cfe/trunk/test/Sema/warn-integer-constants-in-ternary.cclang.src/test/Sema/warn-integer-constants-in-ternary.c
Revision 372530 by tyker:
[clang] fixing conditional explicit for out-of-line definition PR42980

Summary: not every read in CXXConstructorDecl::getExplicitSpecifierInternal() was made on the canonical declaration.

Reviewers: rsmith, aaron.ballman

Reviewed By: rsmith

Subscribers: cfe-commits

Tags: #clang

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D67889
Change TypePath in RepositoryPath in Workspace
The file was modified/cfe/trunk/include/clang/AST/DeclCXX.h (diff)clang.src/include/clang/AST/DeclCXX.h
The file was modified/cfe/trunk/test/SemaCXX/cxx2a-explicit-bool.cpp (diff)clang.src/test/SemaCXX/cxx2a-explicit-bool.cpp