!(Subtarget.hasStdExtM() && isVariableSDivUDivURem(Src)))
break;
SDLoc DL(N);
- return DCI.CombineTo(N, DAG.getNode(ISD::SIGN_EXTEND, DL, MVT::i64, Src));
+ // Don't add the new node to the DAGCombiner worklist, in order to avoid
+ // an infinite cycle due to SimplifyDemandedBits converting the
+ // SIGN_EXTEND back to ANY_EXTEND.
+ return DCI.CombineTo(N, DAG.getNode(ISD::SIGN_EXTEND, DL, MVT::i64, Src),
+ false);
}
case RISCVISD::SplitF64: {
// If the input to SplitF64 is just BuildPairF64 then the operation is
--- /dev/null
+; NOTE: Assertions have been autogenerated by utils/update_llc_test_checks.py
+; RUN: llc -mtriple=riscv64 -verify-machineinstrs < %s \
+; RUN: | FileCheck -check-prefix=RV64I %s
+
+; This test case is significantly simplified from the submitted .ll but
+; demonstrates the same issue. At the time of this problem report, an infinite
+; loop would be created in DAGCombine, converting ANY_EXTEND to SIGN_EXTEND
+; and back again.
+
+; TODO: This test case is also an example of where it would be cheaper to
+; select SRLW, but the current lowering strategy fails to do so.
+
+define signext i8 @foo(i32 %a, i32 %b) nounwind {
+; RV64I-LABEL: foo:
+; RV64I: # %bb.0:
+; RV64I-NEXT: slli a1, a1, 32
+; RV64I-NEXT: srli a1, a1, 32
+; RV64I-NEXT: slli a0, a0, 32
+; RV64I-NEXT: srli a0, a0, 32
+; RV64I-NEXT: srl a0, a0, a1
+; RV64I-NEXT: slli a0, a0, 56
+; RV64I-NEXT: srai a0, a0, 56
+; RV64I-NEXT: ret
+ %1 = lshr i32 %a, %b
+ %2 = trunc i32 %1 to i8
+ ret i8 %2
+}