[llvm] [GISel] Fold bitreverse(shl/srl(bitreverse(x),y)) -> srl/shl(x,y) (PR #91355)

[Madhur Amilkanthwar via llvm-commits]

================
@@ -2016,6 +2016,32 @@ void CombinerHelper::applyCombineShlOfExtend(MachineInstr &MI,
   MI.eraseFromParent();
 }
 
+bool CombinerHelper::matchBitreverseShift(MachineInstr &MI,
+                                          BuildFnTy &MatchInfo) {
+  assert(MI.getOpcode() == TargetOpcode::G_BITREVERSE && "Expected BITREVERSE");
+  Register Dst = MI.getOperand(0).getReg();
+  Register Src = MI.getOperand(1).getReg();
+  Register Val, Amt;
+
+  // fold (bitreverse (shl (bitreverse x), y)) -> (lshr x, y)
+  if (mi_match(Src, MRI, m_GShl(m_GBitreverse(m_Reg(Val)), m_Reg(Amt))) &&
+      isLegalOrBeforeLegalizer(
+          {TargetOpcode::G_LSHR, {MRI.getType(Val), MRI.getType(Amt)}})) {
+    MatchInfo = [=](MachineIRBuilder &B) { B.buildLShr(Dst, Val, Amt); };
+    return true;
+  }
+
+  // fold (bitreverse (lshr (bitreverse x), y)) -> (shl x, y)
+  if (mi_match(Src, MRI, m_GLShr(m_GBitreverse(m_Reg(Val)), m_Reg(Amt))) &&
+      isLegalOrBeforeLegalizer(
+          {TargetOpcode::G_SHL, {MRI.getType(Val), MRI.getType(Amt)}})) {
+    MatchInfo = [=](MachineIRBuilder &B) { B.buildShl(Dst, Val, Amt); };
+    return true;
+  }
----------------
madhur13490 wrote:

Yes, I agree. I think you have to match them again because you are combining the "match" step in a single function. Splitting would just call the function - matchBitreverseShiftLeft/right and then just check for other conditions.

https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/91355