[llvm] [GISel] funnel shift combiner port from SelectionDAG ISel to GlobalISel (PR #135132)

[Axel Sorenson via llvm-commits]

================
@@ -105,3 +105,55 @@ define i16 @test_shl_i48_2(i48 %x, i48 %y) {
   %trunc = trunc i48 %shl to i16
   ret i16 %trunc
 }
+
+define i16 @test_fshl_i32(i32 %x, i32 %_, i32 %y) {
+; RV32-LABEL: test_fshl_i32:
+; RV32:       # %bb.0:
+; RV32-NEXT:    not a3, a2
+; RV32-NEXT:    sll a0, a0, a2
+; RV32-NEXT:    srli a1, a1, 1
+; RV32-NEXT:    srl a1, a1, a3
+; RV32-NEXT:    or a0, a0, a1
+; RV32-NEXT:    ret
+;
+; RV64-LABEL: test_fshl_i32:
+; RV64:       # %bb.0:
+; RV64-NEXT:    not a3, a2
+; RV64-NEXT:    sllw a0, a0, a2
+; RV64-NEXT:    srliw a1, a1, 1
+; RV64-NEXT:    srlw a1, a1, a3
+; RV64-NEXT:    or a0, a0, a1
+; RV64-NEXT:    ret
+
+    %fshl = call i32 @llvm.fshl.i32(i32 %x, i32 %_, i32 %y)
+    %shl = shl i32 %x, %y
+    %or = or i32 %fshl, %shl
+    %trunc = trunc i32 %or to i16
+    ret i16 %trunc
+}
+
+define i16 @test_fshr_i32(i32 %_, i32 %x, i32 %y) {
+; RV32-LABEL: test_fshr_i32:
+; RV32:       # %bb.0:
+; RV32-NEXT:    not a3, a2
+; RV32-NEXT:    slli a0, a0, 1
+; RV32-NEXT:    sll a0, a0, a3
+; RV32-NEXT:    srl a1, a1, a2
+; RV32-NEXT:    or a0, a0, a1
+; RV32-NEXT:    ret
+;
+; RV64-LABEL: test_fshr_i32:
+; RV64:       # %bb.0:
+; RV64-NEXT:    not a3, a2
+; RV64-NEXT:    slli a0, a0, 1
+; RV64-NEXT:    sllw a0, a0, a3
+; RV64-NEXT:    srlw a1, a1, a2
+; RV64-NEXT:    or a0, a0, a1
+; RV64-NEXT:    ret
+
+    %fshr = call i32 @llvm.fshr.i32(i32 %_, i32 %x, i32 %y)
+    %lshr = lshr i32 %x, %y
+    %or = or i32 %fshr, %lshr
+    %trunc = trunc i32 %or to i16
+    ret i16 %trunc
+}
----------------
axelcool1234 wrote:

> Ideally would share the existing DAG combine tests here instead of creating new copies

The issue I ran into has to do with the i48 type leading to a lot of code being generated to emulate `@llvm.fshl.i48` since it isn't natively supported. The resulting expected test output would be really large. Should I still go for it? 

> Also negative multi-use tests.

Is this referring to the fact that I'm truncating or something else? I apologize, I'm still getting a hang to contributing here (and thanks for reviewing my patch!)

> Vector version of tests?

Is there a common vector size that many contributors use for vector versions of tests? I'll make sure to implement that :)

https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/135132