aboutsummaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/lib/Target/PowerPC/README.txt
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
Diffstat (limited to 'lib/Target/PowerPC/README.txt')
-rw-r--r--lib/Target/PowerPC/README.txt799
1 files changed, 799 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/lib/Target/PowerPC/README.txt b/lib/Target/PowerPC/README.txt
new file mode 100644
index 000000000000..688fb3090803
--- /dev/null
+++ b/lib/Target/PowerPC/README.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,799 @@
+//===- README.txt - Notes for improving PowerPC-specific code gen ---------===//
+
+TODO:
+* gpr0 allocation
+* implement do-loop -> bdnz transform
+* lmw/stmw pass a la arm load store optimizer for prolog/epilog
+
+===-------------------------------------------------------------------------===
+
+Support 'update' load/store instructions. These are cracked on the G5, but are
+still a codesize win.
+
+With preinc enabled, this:
+
+long *%test4(long *%X, long *%dest) {
+ %Y = getelementptr long* %X, int 4
+ %A = load long* %Y
+ store long %A, long* %dest
+ ret long* %Y
+}
+
+compiles to:
+
+_test4:
+ mr r2, r3
+ lwzu r5, 32(r2)
+ lwz r3, 36(r3)
+ stw r5, 0(r4)
+ stw r3, 4(r4)
+ mr r3, r2
+ blr
+
+with -sched=list-burr, I get:
+
+_test4:
+ lwz r2, 36(r3)
+ lwzu r5, 32(r3)
+ stw r2, 4(r4)
+ stw r5, 0(r4)
+ blr
+
+===-------------------------------------------------------------------------===
+
+We compile the hottest inner loop of viterbi to:
+
+ li r6, 0
+ b LBB1_84 ;bb432.i
+LBB1_83: ;bb420.i
+ lbzx r8, r5, r7
+ addi r6, r7, 1
+ stbx r8, r4, r7
+LBB1_84: ;bb432.i
+ mr r7, r6
+ cmplwi cr0, r7, 143
+ bne cr0, LBB1_83 ;bb420.i
+
+The CBE manages to produce:
+
+ li r0, 143
+ mtctr r0
+loop:
+ lbzx r2, r2, r11
+ stbx r0, r2, r9
+ addi r2, r2, 1
+ bdz later
+ b loop
+
+This could be much better (bdnz instead of bdz) but it still beats us. If we
+produced this with bdnz, the loop would be a single dispatch group.
+
+===-------------------------------------------------------------------------===
+
+Compile:
+
+void foo(int *P) {
+ if (P) *P = 0;
+}
+
+into:
+
+_foo:
+ cmpwi cr0,r3,0
+ beqlr cr0
+ li r0,0
+ stw r0,0(r3)
+ blr
+
+This is effectively a simple form of predication.
+
+===-------------------------------------------------------------------------===
+
+Lump the constant pool for each function into ONE pic object, and reference
+pieces of it as offsets from the start. For functions like this (contrived
+to have lots of constants obviously):
+
+double X(double Y) { return (Y*1.23 + 4.512)*2.34 + 14.38; }
+
+We generate:
+
+_X:
+ lis r2, ha16(.CPI_X_0)
+ lfd f0, lo16(.CPI_X_0)(r2)
+ lis r2, ha16(.CPI_X_1)
+ lfd f2, lo16(.CPI_X_1)(r2)
+ fmadd f0, f1, f0, f2
+ lis r2, ha16(.CPI_X_2)
+ lfd f1, lo16(.CPI_X_2)(r2)
+ lis r2, ha16(.CPI_X_3)
+ lfd f2, lo16(.CPI_X_3)(r2)
+ fmadd f1, f0, f1, f2
+ blr
+
+It would be better to materialize .CPI_X into a register, then use immediates
+off of the register to avoid the lis's. This is even more important in PIC
+mode.
+
+Note that this (and the static variable version) is discussed here for GCC:
+http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2006-02/msg00133.html
+
+Here's another example (the sgn function):
+double testf(double a) {
+ return a == 0.0 ? 0.0 : (a > 0.0 ? 1.0 : -1.0);
+}
+
+it produces a BB like this:
+LBB1_1: ; cond_true
+ lis r2, ha16(LCPI1_0)
+ lfs f0, lo16(LCPI1_0)(r2)
+ lis r2, ha16(LCPI1_1)
+ lis r3, ha16(LCPI1_2)
+ lfs f2, lo16(LCPI1_2)(r3)
+ lfs f3, lo16(LCPI1_1)(r2)
+ fsub f0, f0, f1
+ fsel f1, f0, f2, f3
+ blr
+
+===-------------------------------------------------------------------------===
+
+PIC Code Gen IPO optimization:
+
+Squish small scalar globals together into a single global struct, allowing the
+address of the struct to be CSE'd, avoiding PIC accesses (also reduces the size
+of the GOT on targets with one).
+
+Note that this is discussed here for GCC:
+http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2006-02/msg00133.html
+
+===-------------------------------------------------------------------------===
+
+Implement Newton-Rhapson method for improving estimate instructions to the
+correct accuracy, and implementing divide as multiply by reciprocal when it has
+more than one use. Itanium will want this too.
+
+===-------------------------------------------------------------------------===
+
+Compile offsets from allocas:
+
+int *%test() {
+ %X = alloca { int, int }
+ %Y = getelementptr {int,int}* %X, int 0, uint 1
+ ret int* %Y
+}
+
+into a single add, not two:
+
+_test:
+ addi r2, r1, -8
+ addi r3, r2, 4
+ blr
+
+--> important for C++.
+
+===-------------------------------------------------------------------------===
+
+No loads or stores of the constants should be needed:
+
+struct foo { double X, Y; };
+void xxx(struct foo F);
+void bar() { struct foo R = { 1.0, 2.0 }; xxx(R); }
+
+===-------------------------------------------------------------------------===
+
+Darwin Stub LICM optimization:
+
+Loops like this:
+
+ for (...) bar();
+
+Have to go through an indirect stub if bar is external or linkonce. It would
+be better to compile it as:
+
+ fp = &bar;
+ for (...) fp();
+
+which only computes the address of bar once (instead of each time through the
+stub). This is Darwin specific and would have to be done in the code generator.
+Probably not a win on x86.
+
+===-------------------------------------------------------------------------===
+
+Simple IPO for argument passing, change:
+ void foo(int X, double Y, int Z) -> void foo(int X, int Z, double Y)
+
+the Darwin ABI specifies that any integer arguments in the first 32 bytes worth
+of arguments get assigned to r3 through r10. That is, if you have a function
+foo(int, double, int) you get r3, f1, r6, since the 64 bit double ate up the
+argument bytes for r4 and r5. The trick then would be to shuffle the argument
+order for functions we can internalize so that the maximum number of
+integers/pointers get passed in regs before you see any of the fp arguments.
+
+Instead of implementing this, it would actually probably be easier to just
+implement a PPC fastcc, where we could do whatever we wanted to the CC,
+including having this work sanely.
+
+===-------------------------------------------------------------------------===
+
+Fix Darwin FP-In-Integer Registers ABI
+
+Darwin passes doubles in structures in integer registers, which is very very
+bad. Add something like a BIT_CONVERT to LLVM, then do an i-p transformation
+that percolates these things out of functions.
+
+Check out how horrible this is:
+http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2005-10/msg01036.html
+
+This is an extension of "interprocedural CC unmunging" that can't be done with
+just fastcc.
+
+===-------------------------------------------------------------------------===
+
+Compile this:
+
+int foo(int a) {
+ int b = (a < 8);
+ if (b) {
+ return b * 3; // ignore the fact that this is always 3.
+ } else {
+ return 2;
+ }
+}
+
+into something not this:
+
+_foo:
+1) cmpwi cr7, r3, 8
+ mfcr r2, 1
+ rlwinm r2, r2, 29, 31, 31
+1) cmpwi cr0, r3, 7
+ bgt cr0, LBB1_2 ; UnifiedReturnBlock
+LBB1_1: ; then
+ rlwinm r2, r2, 0, 31, 31
+ mulli r3, r2, 3
+ blr
+LBB1_2: ; UnifiedReturnBlock
+ li r3, 2
+ blr
+
+In particular, the two compares (marked 1) could be shared by reversing one.
+This could be done in the dag combiner, by swapping a BR_CC when a SETCC of the
+same operands (but backwards) exists. In this case, this wouldn't save us
+anything though, because the compares still wouldn't be shared.
+
+===-------------------------------------------------------------------------===
+
+We should custom expand setcc instead of pretending that we have it. That
+would allow us to expose the access of the crbit after the mfcr, allowing
+that access to be trivially folded into other ops. A simple example:
+
+int foo(int a, int b) { return (a < b) << 4; }
+
+compiles into:
+
+_foo:
+ cmpw cr7, r3, r4
+ mfcr r2, 1
+ rlwinm r2, r2, 29, 31, 31
+ slwi r3, r2, 4
+ blr
+
+===-------------------------------------------------------------------------===
+
+Fold add and sub with constant into non-extern, non-weak addresses so this:
+
+static int a;
+void bar(int b) { a = b; }
+void foo(unsigned char *c) {
+ *c = a;
+}
+
+So that
+
+_foo:
+ lis r2, ha16(_a)
+ la r2, lo16(_a)(r2)
+ lbz r2, 3(r2)
+ stb r2, 0(r3)
+ blr
+
+Becomes
+
+_foo:
+ lis r2, ha16(_a+3)
+ lbz r2, lo16(_a+3)(r2)
+ stb r2, 0(r3)
+ blr
+
+===-------------------------------------------------------------------------===
+
+We generate really bad code for this:
+
+int f(signed char *a, _Bool b, _Bool c) {
+ signed char t = 0;
+ if (b) t = *a;
+ if (c) *a = t;
+}
+
+===-------------------------------------------------------------------------===
+
+This:
+int test(unsigned *P) { return *P >> 24; }
+
+Should compile to:
+
+_test:
+ lbz r3,0(r3)
+ blr
+
+not:
+
+_test:
+ lwz r2, 0(r3)
+ srwi r3, r2, 24
+ blr
+
+===-------------------------------------------------------------------------===
+
+On the G5, logical CR operations are more expensive in their three
+address form: ops that read/write the same register are half as expensive as
+those that read from two registers that are different from their destination.
+
+We should model this with two separate instructions. The isel should generate
+the "two address" form of the instructions. When the register allocator
+detects that it needs to insert a copy due to the two-addresness of the CR
+logical op, it will invoke PPCInstrInfo::convertToThreeAddress. At this point
+we can convert to the "three address" instruction, to save code space.
+
+This only matters when we start generating cr logical ops.
+
+===-------------------------------------------------------------------------===
+
+We should compile these two functions to the same thing:
+
+#include <stdlib.h>
+void f(int a, int b, int *P) {
+ *P = (a-b)>=0?(a-b):(b-a);
+}
+void g(int a, int b, int *P) {
+ *P = abs(a-b);
+}
+
+Further, they should compile to something better than:
+
+_g:
+ subf r2, r4, r3
+ subfic r3, r2, 0
+ cmpwi cr0, r2, -1
+ bgt cr0, LBB2_2 ; entry
+LBB2_1: ; entry
+ mr r2, r3
+LBB2_2: ; entry
+ stw r2, 0(r5)
+ blr
+
+GCC produces:
+
+_g:
+ subf r4,r4,r3
+ srawi r2,r4,31
+ xor r0,r2,r4
+ subf r0,r2,r0
+ stw r0,0(r5)
+ blr
+
+... which is much nicer.
+
+This theoretically may help improve twolf slightly (used in dimbox.c:142?).
+
+===-------------------------------------------------------------------------===
+
+int foo(int N, int ***W, int **TK, int X) {
+ int t, i;
+
+ for (t = 0; t < N; ++t)
+ for (i = 0; i < 4; ++i)
+ W[t / X][i][t % X] = TK[i][t];
+
+ return 5;
+}
+
+We generate relatively atrocious code for this loop compared to gcc.
+
+We could also strength reduce the rem and the div:
+http://www.lcs.mit.edu/pubs/pdf/MIT-LCS-TM-600.pdf
+
+===-------------------------------------------------------------------------===
+
+float foo(float X) { return (int)(X); }
+
+Currently produces:
+
+_foo:
+ fctiwz f0, f1
+ stfd f0, -8(r1)
+ lwz r2, -4(r1)
+ extsw r2, r2
+ std r2, -16(r1)
+ lfd f0, -16(r1)
+ fcfid f0, f0
+ frsp f1, f0
+ blr
+
+We could use a target dag combine to turn the lwz/extsw into an lwa when the
+lwz has a single use. Since LWA is cracked anyway, this would be a codesize
+win only.
+
+===-------------------------------------------------------------------------===
+
+We generate ugly code for this:
+
+void func(unsigned int *ret, float dx, float dy, float dz, float dw) {
+ unsigned code = 0;
+ if(dx < -dw) code |= 1;
+ if(dx > dw) code |= 2;
+ if(dy < -dw) code |= 4;
+ if(dy > dw) code |= 8;
+ if(dz < -dw) code |= 16;
+ if(dz > dw) code |= 32;
+ *ret = code;
+}
+
+===-------------------------------------------------------------------------===
+
+Complete the signed i32 to FP conversion code using 64-bit registers
+transformation, good for PI. See PPCISelLowering.cpp, this comment:
+
+ // FIXME: disable this lowered code. This generates 64-bit register values,
+ // and we don't model the fact that the top part is clobbered by calls. We
+ // need to flag these together so that the value isn't live across a call.
+ //setOperationAction(ISD::SINT_TO_FP, MVT::i32, Custom);
+
+Also, if the registers are spilled to the stack, we have to ensure that all
+64-bits of them are save/restored, otherwise we will miscompile the code. It
+sounds like we need to get the 64-bit register classes going.
+
+===-------------------------------------------------------------------------===
+
+%struct.B = type { i8, [3 x i8] }
+
+define void @bar(%struct.B* %b) {
+entry:
+ %tmp = bitcast %struct.B* %b to i32* ; <uint*> [#uses=1]
+ %tmp = load i32* %tmp ; <uint> [#uses=1]
+ %tmp3 = bitcast %struct.B* %b to i32* ; <uint*> [#uses=1]
+ %tmp4 = load i32* %tmp3 ; <uint> [#uses=1]
+ %tmp8 = bitcast %struct.B* %b to i32* ; <uint*> [#uses=2]
+ %tmp9 = load i32* %tmp8 ; <uint> [#uses=1]
+ %tmp4.mask17 = shl i32 %tmp4, i8 1 ; <uint> [#uses=1]
+ %tmp1415 = and i32 %tmp4.mask17, 2147483648 ; <uint> [#uses=1]
+ %tmp.masked = and i32 %tmp, 2147483648 ; <uint> [#uses=1]
+ %tmp11 = or i32 %tmp1415, %tmp.masked ; <uint> [#uses=1]
+ %tmp12 = and i32 %tmp9, 2147483647 ; <uint> [#uses=1]
+ %tmp13 = or i32 %tmp12, %tmp11 ; <uint> [#uses=1]
+ store i32 %tmp13, i32* %tmp8
+ ret void
+}
+
+We emit:
+
+_foo:
+ lwz r2, 0(r3)
+ slwi r4, r2, 1
+ or r4, r4, r2
+ rlwimi r2, r4, 0, 0, 0
+ stw r2, 0(r3)
+ blr
+
+We could collapse a bunch of those ORs and ANDs and generate the following
+equivalent code:
+
+_foo:
+ lwz r2, 0(r3)
+ rlwinm r4, r2, 1, 0, 0
+ or r2, r2, r4
+ stw r2, 0(r3)
+ blr
+
+===-------------------------------------------------------------------------===
+
+We compile:
+
+unsigned test6(unsigned x) {
+ return ((x & 0x00FF0000) >> 16) | ((x & 0x000000FF) << 16);
+}
+
+into:
+
+_test6:
+ lis r2, 255
+ rlwinm r3, r3, 16, 0, 31
+ ori r2, r2, 255
+ and r3, r3, r2
+ blr
+
+GCC gets it down to:
+
+_test6:
+ rlwinm r0,r3,16,8,15
+ rlwinm r3,r3,16,24,31
+ or r3,r3,r0
+ blr
+
+
+===-------------------------------------------------------------------------===
+
+Consider a function like this:
+
+float foo(float X) { return X + 1234.4123f; }
+
+The FP constant ends up in the constant pool, so we need to get the LR register.
+ This ends up producing code like this:
+
+_foo:
+.LBB_foo_0: ; entry
+ mflr r11
+*** stw r11, 8(r1)
+ bl "L00000$pb"
+"L00000$pb":
+ mflr r2
+ addis r2, r2, ha16(.CPI_foo_0-"L00000$pb")
+ lfs f0, lo16(.CPI_foo_0-"L00000$pb")(r2)
+ fadds f1, f1, f0
+*** lwz r11, 8(r1)
+ mtlr r11
+ blr
+
+This is functional, but there is no reason to spill the LR register all the way
+to the stack (the two marked instrs): spilling it to a GPR is quite enough.
+
+Implementing this will require some codegen improvements. Nate writes:
+
+"So basically what we need to support the "no stack frame save and restore" is a
+generalization of the LR optimization to "callee-save regs".
+
+Currently, we have LR marked as a callee-save reg. The register allocator sees
+that it's callee save, and spills it directly to the stack.
+
+Ideally, something like this would happen:
+
+LR would be in a separate register class from the GPRs. The class of LR would be
+marked "unspillable". When the register allocator came across an unspillable
+reg, it would ask "what is the best class to copy this into that I *can* spill"
+If it gets a class back, which it will in this case (the gprs), it grabs a free
+register of that class. If it is then later necessary to spill that reg, so be
+it.
+
+===-------------------------------------------------------------------------===
+
+We compile this:
+int test(_Bool X) {
+ return X ? 524288 : 0;
+}
+
+to:
+_test:
+ cmplwi cr0, r3, 0
+ lis r2, 8
+ li r3, 0
+ beq cr0, LBB1_2 ;entry
+LBB1_1: ;entry
+ mr r3, r2
+LBB1_2: ;entry
+ blr
+
+instead of:
+_test:
+ addic r2,r3,-1
+ subfe r0,r2,r3
+ slwi r3,r0,19
+ blr
+
+This sort of thing occurs a lot due to globalopt.
+
+===-------------------------------------------------------------------------===
+
+We currently compile 32-bit bswap:
+
+declare i32 @llvm.bswap.i32(i32 %A)
+define i32 @test(i32 %A) {
+ %B = call i32 @llvm.bswap.i32(i32 %A)
+ ret i32 %B
+}
+
+to:
+
+_test:
+ rlwinm r2, r3, 24, 16, 23
+ slwi r4, r3, 24
+ rlwimi r2, r3, 8, 24, 31
+ rlwimi r4, r3, 8, 8, 15
+ rlwimi r4, r2, 0, 16, 31
+ mr r3, r4
+ blr
+
+it would be more efficient to produce:
+
+_foo: mr r0,r3
+ rlwinm r3,r3,8,0xffffffff
+ rlwimi r3,r0,24,0,7
+ rlwimi r3,r0,24,16,23
+ blr
+
+===-------------------------------------------------------------------------===
+
+test/CodeGen/PowerPC/2007-03-24-cntlzd.ll compiles to:
+
+__ZNK4llvm5APInt17countLeadingZerosEv:
+ ld r2, 0(r3)
+ cntlzd r2, r2
+ or r2, r2, r2 <<-- silly.
+ addi r3, r2, -64
+ blr
+
+The dead or is a 'truncate' from 64- to 32-bits.
+
+===-------------------------------------------------------------------------===
+
+We generate horrible ppc code for this:
+
+#define N 2000000
+double a[N],c[N];
+void simpleloop() {
+ int j;
+ for (j=0; j<N; j++)
+ c[j] = a[j];
+}
+
+LBB1_1: ;bb
+ lfdx f0, r3, r4
+ addi r5, r5, 1 ;; Extra IV for the exit value compare.
+ stfdx f0, r2, r4
+ addi r4, r4, 8
+
+ xoris r6, r5, 30 ;; This is due to a large immediate.
+ cmplwi cr0, r6, 33920
+ bne cr0, LBB1_1
+
+//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
+
+This:
+ #include <algorithm>
+ inline std::pair<unsigned, bool> full_add(unsigned a, unsigned b)
+ { return std::make_pair(a + b, a + b < a); }
+ bool no_overflow(unsigned a, unsigned b)
+ { return !full_add(a, b).second; }
+
+Should compile to:
+
+__Z11no_overflowjj:
+ add r4,r3,r4
+ subfc r3,r3,r4
+ li r3,0
+ adde r3,r3,r3
+ blr
+
+(or better) not:
+
+__Z11no_overflowjj:
+ add r2, r4, r3
+ cmplw cr7, r2, r3
+ mfcr r2
+ rlwinm r2, r2, 29, 31, 31
+ xori r3, r2, 1
+ blr
+
+//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
+
+We compile some FP comparisons into an mfcr with two rlwinms and an or. For
+example:
+#include <math.h>
+int test(double x, double y) { return islessequal(x, y);}
+int test2(double x, double y) { return islessgreater(x, y);}
+int test3(double x, double y) { return !islessequal(x, y);}
+
+Compiles into (all three are similar, but the bits differ):
+
+_test:
+ fcmpu cr7, f1, f2
+ mfcr r2
+ rlwinm r3, r2, 29, 31, 31
+ rlwinm r2, r2, 31, 31, 31
+ or r3, r2, r3
+ blr
+
+GCC compiles this into:
+
+ _test:
+ fcmpu cr7,f1,f2
+ cror 30,28,30
+ mfcr r3
+ rlwinm r3,r3,31,1
+ blr
+
+which is more efficient and can use mfocr. See PR642 for some more context.
+
+//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
+
+void foo(float *data, float d) {
+ long i;
+ for (i = 0; i < 8000; i++)
+ data[i] = d;
+}
+void foo2(float *data, float d) {
+ long i;
+ data--;
+ for (i = 0; i < 8000; i++) {
+ data[1] = d;
+ data++;
+ }
+}
+
+These compile to:
+
+_foo:
+ li r2, 0
+LBB1_1: ; bb
+ addi r4, r2, 4
+ stfsx f1, r3, r2
+ cmplwi cr0, r4, 32000
+ mr r2, r4
+ bne cr0, LBB1_1 ; bb
+ blr
+_foo2:
+ li r2, 0
+LBB2_1: ; bb
+ addi r4, r2, 4
+ stfsx f1, r3, r2
+ cmplwi cr0, r4, 32000
+ mr r2, r4
+ bne cr0, LBB2_1 ; bb
+ blr
+
+The 'mr' could be eliminated to folding the add into the cmp better.
+
+//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
+Codegen for the following (low-probability) case deteriorated considerably
+when the correctness fixes for unordered comparisons went in (PR 642, 58871).
+It should be possible to recover the code quality described in the comments.
+
+; RUN: llvm-as < %s | llc -march=ppc32 | grep or | count 3
+; This should produce one 'or' or 'cror' instruction per function.
+
+; RUN: llvm-as < %s | llc -march=ppc32 | grep mfcr | count 3
+; PR2964
+
+define i32 @test(double %x, double %y) nounwind {
+entry:
+ %tmp3 = fcmp ole double %x, %y ; <i1> [#uses=1]
+ %tmp345 = zext i1 %tmp3 to i32 ; <i32> [#uses=1]
+ ret i32 %tmp345
+}
+
+define i32 @test2(double %x, double %y) nounwind {
+entry:
+ %tmp3 = fcmp one double %x, %y ; <i1> [#uses=1]
+ %tmp345 = zext i1 %tmp3 to i32 ; <i32> [#uses=1]
+ ret i32 %tmp345
+}
+
+define i32 @test3(double %x, double %y) nounwind {
+entry:
+ %tmp3 = fcmp ugt double %x, %y ; <i1> [#uses=1]
+ %tmp34 = zext i1 %tmp3 to i32 ; <i32> [#uses=1]
+ ret i32 %tmp34
+}
+//===----------------------------------------------------------------------===//
+; RUN: llvm-as < %s | llc -march=ppc32 | not grep fneg
+
+; This could generate FSEL with appropriate flags (FSEL is not IEEE-safe, and
+; should not be generated except with -enable-finite-only-fp-math or the like).
+; With the correctness fixes for PR642 (58871) LowerSELECT_CC would need to
+; recognize a more elaborate tree than a simple SETxx.
+
+define double @test_FNEG_sel(double %A, double %B, double %C) {
+ %D = sub double -0.000000e+00, %A ; <double> [#uses=1]
+ %Cond = fcmp ugt double %D, -0.000000e+00 ; <i1> [#uses=1]
+ %E = select i1 %Cond, double %B, double %C ; <double> [#uses=1]
+ ret double %E
+}
+
generated by cgit v1.2.3 (git 2.25.1) at 2024-10-25 23:38:12 +0000