Add an instcombine for constructs like a | -(b != c); a select is more
canonical, and generally leads to better code. Found while looking at
an article about saturating arithmetic.
llvm-svn: 129545
diff --git a/llvm/lib/Transforms/InstCombine/InstCombineAndOrXor.cpp b/llvm/lib/Transforms/InstCombine/InstCombineAndOrXor.cpp
index 1cb18e1..6cf4053 100644
--- a/llvm/lib/Transforms/InstCombine/InstCombineAndOrXor.cpp
+++ b/llvm/lib/Transforms/InstCombine/InstCombineAndOrXor.cpp
@@ -2003,7 +2003,14 @@
}
}
}
-
+
+ // or(sext(A), B) -> A ? -1 : B where A is an i1
+ // or(A, sext(B)) -> B ? -1 : A where B is an i1
+ if (match(Op0, m_SExt(m_Value(A))) && A->getType()->isIntegerTy(1))
+ return SelectInst::Create(A, ConstantInt::getSigned(I.getType(), -1), Op1);
+ if (match(Op1, m_SExt(m_Value(A))) && A->getType()->isIntegerTy(1))
+ return SelectInst::Create(A, ConstantInt::getSigned(I.getType(), -1), Op0);
+
// Note: If we've gotten to the point of visiting the outer OR, then the
// inner one couldn't be simplified. If it was a constant, then it won't
// be simplified by a later pass either, so we try swapping the inner/outer