Follow up to Jim's r138278. This fixes commuteInstruction so it handles two-address instructions correctly. I'll let Jim add a test case. :-)

llvm-svn: 138289
This commit is contained in:
Evan Cheng 2011-08-22 23:04:56 +00:00
parent 04e6944000
commit a828915f91

View File

@ -74,23 +74,25 @@ MachineInstr *TargetInstrInfoImpl::commuteInstruction(MachineInstr *MI,
assert(MI->getOperand(Idx1).isReg() && MI->getOperand(Idx2).isReg() &&
"This only knows how to commute register operands so far");
unsigned Reg0 = HasDef ? MI->getOperand(0).getReg() : 0;
unsigned Reg1 = MI->getOperand(Idx1).getReg();
unsigned Reg2 = MI->getOperand(Idx2).getReg();
bool Reg1IsKill = MI->getOperand(Idx1).isKill();
bool Reg2IsKill = MI->getOperand(Idx2).isKill();
bool ChangeReg0 = false;
if (HasDef && MI->getOperand(0).getReg() == Reg1) {
// Must be two address instruction!
assert(MI->getDesc().getOperandConstraint(0, MCOI::TIED_TO) &&
"Expecting a two-address instruction!");
// If destination is tied to either of the commuted source register, then
// it must be updated.
if (HasDef && Reg0 == Reg1 &&
MI->getDesc().getOperandConstraint(Idx1, MCOI::TIED_TO) == 0) {
Reg2IsKill = false;
ChangeReg0 = true;
Reg0 = Reg2;
} else if (HasDef && Reg0 == Reg2 &&
MI->getDesc().getOperandConstraint(Idx2, MCOI::TIED_TO) == 0) {
Reg1IsKill = false;
Reg0 = Reg1;
}
if (NewMI) {
// Create a new instruction.
unsigned Reg0 = HasDef
? (ChangeReg0 ? Reg2 : MI->getOperand(0).getReg()) : 0;
bool Reg0IsDead = HasDef ? MI->getOperand(0).isDead() : false;
MachineFunction &MF = *MI->getParent()->getParent();
if (HasDef)
@ -104,8 +106,8 @@ MachineInstr *TargetInstrInfoImpl::commuteInstruction(MachineInstr *MI,
.addReg(Reg1, getKillRegState(Reg2IsKill));
}
if (ChangeReg0)
MI->getOperand(0).setReg(Reg2);
if (HasDef)
MI->getOperand(0).setReg(Reg0);
MI->getOperand(Idx2).setReg(Reg1);
MI->getOperand(Idx1).setReg(Reg2);
MI->getOperand(Idx2).setIsKill(Reg1IsKill);