LaneMasks as given by getSubRegIndexLaneMask() have a limited number of
of bits, so for targets with more than 31 disjunct subregister there may
be cases where:
getSubReg(Reg,A) does not overlap getSubReg(Reg,B)
but we still have
(getSubRegIndexLaneMask(A) & getSubRegIndexLaneMask(B)) != 0.
I had hoped to keep this an implementation detail of the tablegen but as
my next commit shows we can avoid unnecessary imp-defs operands if we
know that the lane masks in use are precise.
This is in preparation to http://reviews.llvm.org/D10470.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@239837
91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-
96231b3b80d8
return SubRegIndexLaneMasks[SubIdx];
}
+ /// Returns true if the given lane mask is imprecise.
+ ///
+ /// LaneMasks as given by getSubRegIndexLaneMask() have a limited number of
+ /// bits, so for targets with more than 31 disjunct subregister indices there
+ /// may be cases where:
+ /// getSubReg(Reg,A) does not overlap getSubReg(Reg,B)
+ /// but we still have
+ /// (getSubRegIndexLaneMask(A) & getSubRegIndexLaneMask(B)) != 0.
+ /// This function returns true in those cases.
+ static bool isImpreciseLaneMask(unsigned LaneMask) {
+ return LaneMask & 0x80000000u;
+ }
+
/// The lane masks returned by getSubRegIndexLaneMask() above can only be
/// used to determine if sub-registers overlap - they can't be used to
/// determine if a set of sub-registers completely cover another
// "overflow bit" 32. As a workaround we drop all subregister ranges
// which means we loose some precision but are back to a well defined
// state.
- assert((CP.getNewRC()->getLaneMask() & 0x80000000u)
+ assert(TargetRegisterInfo::isImpreciseLaneMask(
+ CP.getNewRC()->getLaneMask())
&& "SubRange merge should only fail when merging into bit 32.");
DEBUG(dbgs() << "\tSubrange join aborted!\n");
LHS.clearSubRanges();