[llvm] adc6972 - [TargetLowering] Fix what look like copy/paste mistakes in compare with infinity handling SimplifySetCC.

[Craig Topper via llvm-commits]

Author: Craig Topper
Date: 2020-03-02T14:12:16-08:00
New Revision: adc69729ec85aea0a32e7bdf24e91e8f6178a38b

URL: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/adc69729ec85aea0a32e7bdf24e91e8f6178a38b
DIFF: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/adc69729ec85aea0a32e7bdf24e91e8f6178a38b.diff

LOG: [TargetLowering] Fix what look like copy/paste mistakes in compare with infinity handling SimplifySetCC.

I expect that the isCondCodeLegal checks should match that CC of
the node that we're going to create.

Rewriting to a switch to minimize repeated mentions of the same
constants.

Added: 
    

Modified: 
    llvm/lib/CodeGen/SelectionDAG/TargetLowering.cpp

Removed: 
    


################################################################################
diff  --git a/llvm/lib/CodeGen/SelectionDAG/TargetLowering.cpp b/llvm/lib/CodeGen/SelectionDAG/TargetLowering.cpp
index ae11d7c5dfee..28a0eb6e3724 100644
--- a/llvm/lib/CodeGen/SelectionDAG/TargetLowering.cpp
+++ b/llvm/lib/CodeGen/SelectionDAG/TargetLowering.cpp
@@ -3864,33 +3864,17 @@ SDValue TargetLowering::SimplifySetCC(EVT VT, SDValue N0, SDValue N1,
       // the comparison operands is infinity or negative infinity, convert the
       // condition to a less-awkward <= or >=.
       if (CFP->getValueAPF().isInfinity()) {
-        if (CFP->getValueAPF().isNegative()) {
-          if (Cond == ISD::SETOEQ &&
-              isCondCodeLegal(ISD::SETOLE, N0.getSimpleValueType()))
-            return DAG.getSetCC(dl, VT, N0, N1, ISD::SETOLE);
-          if (Cond == ISD::SETUEQ &&
-              isCondCodeLegal(ISD::SETOLE, N0.getSimpleValueType()))
-            return DAG.getSetCC(dl, VT, N0, N1, ISD::SETULE);
-          if (Cond == ISD::SETUNE &&
-              isCondCodeLegal(ISD::SETUGT, N0.getSimpleValueType()))
-            return DAG.getSetCC(dl, VT, N0, N1, ISD::SETUGT);
-          if (Cond == ISD::SETONE &&
-              isCondCodeLegal(ISD::SETUGT, N0.getSimpleValueType()))
-            return DAG.getSetCC(dl, VT, N0, N1, ISD::SETOGT);
-        } else {
-          if (Cond == ISD::SETOEQ &&
-              isCondCodeLegal(ISD::SETOGE, N0.getSimpleValueType()))
-            return DAG.getSetCC(dl, VT, N0, N1, ISD::SETOGE);
-          if (Cond == ISD::SETUEQ &&
-              isCondCodeLegal(ISD::SETOGE, N0.getSimpleValueType()))
-            return DAG.getSetCC(dl, VT, N0, N1, ISD::SETUGE);
-          if (Cond == ISD::SETUNE &&
-              isCondCodeLegal(ISD::SETULT, N0.getSimpleValueType()))
-            return DAG.getSetCC(dl, VT, N0, N1, ISD::SETULT);
-          if (Cond == ISD::SETONE &&
-              isCondCodeLegal(ISD::SETULT, N0.getSimpleValueType()))
-            return DAG.getSetCC(dl, VT, N0, N1, ISD::SETOLT);
+        bool IsNegInf = CFP->getValueAPF().isNegative();
+        ISD::CondCode NewCond = ISD::SETCC_INVALID;
+        switch (Cond) {
+        case ISD::SETOEQ: NewCond = IsNegInf ? ISD::SETOLE : ISD::SETOGE; break;
+        case ISD::SETUEQ: NewCond = IsNegInf ? ISD::SETULE : ISD::SETUGE; break;
+        case ISD::SETUNE: NewCond = IsNegInf ? ISD::SETUGT : ISD::SETULT; break;
+        case ISD::SETONE: NewCond = IsNegInf ? ISD::SETOGT : ISD::SETOLT; break;
         }
+        if (NewCond != ISD::SETCC_INVALID &&
+            isCondCodeLegal(NewCond, N0.getSimpleValueType()))
+          return DAG.getSetCC(dl, VT, N0, N1, NewCond);
       }
     }
   }