[PATCH] D95289: [TargetLowering][RISCV] Don't turn (seteq/ne (sext_inreg X, VT), C1) -> (seteq/ne (zext_inreg X, VT), C1) if the sext_inreg is cheaper

[Jessica Clarke via Phabricator via llvm-commits]

jrtc27 added inline comments.


================
Comment at: llvm/test/CodeGen/RISCV/double-stack-spill-restore.ll:22
 ; RV32IFD-NEXT:    fsd ft0, 8(sp) # 8-byte Folded Spill
-; RV32IFD-NEXT:    call func
+; RV32IFD-NEXT:    call func at plt
 ; RV32IFD-NEXT:    sw a0, 16(sp)
----------------
luismarques wrote:
> jrtc27 wrote:
> > frasercrmck wrote:
> > > I'm not familiar with this syntax: is this just a result of running the `update_llc_test_checks.py` script, and given that `call func` matches `call func at plt` it was passing anyway?
> > Yes, these check lines just predate full PIC support
> What confuses me about this is that @mundaym had fairly recently regenerated all of the tests, which added spill comments and `@plt` stuff. Why didn't `update_llc_test_checks.py` add the `@plt` here then?
Hm, I would guess 2047c10c22b071cccc57a7e2779d6603512e9113. Adding `dso_local` to `func` should make this diff go away, though I don't care which change is made, both are correct and end up testing what we want.


Repository:
  rG LLVM Github Monorepo

CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D95289/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D95289