std::swap(X, Y);
// Look through a one-use zext.
- if (Y.getOpcode() == ISD::ZERO_EXTEND && Y.hasOneUse())
+ bool PeekedThroughZext = false;
+ if (Y.getOpcode() == ISD::ZERO_EXTEND && Y.hasOneUse()) {
Y = Y.getOperand(0);
+ PeekedThroughZext = true;
+ }
// If this is an add, canonicalize a setcc operand to the RHS.
// TODO: Incomplete? What if both sides are setcc?
- if (!IsSub && X.getOpcode() == X86ISD::SETCC &&
+ // TODO: Should we allow peeking through a zext of the other operand?
+ if (!IsSub && !PeekedThroughZext && X.getOpcode() == X86ISD::SETCC &&
Y.getOpcode() != X86ISD::SETCC)
std::swap(X, Y);
--- /dev/null
+; NOTE: Assertions have been autogenerated by utils/update_llc_test_checks.py
+; RUN: llc -mtriple=x86_64-unknown-unknown -mattr=avx512f %s -o - | FileCheck %s
+
+; This asserted because we didn't account for a zext of a non-SETCC node:
+; https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=32316
+
+define i8 @PR32316(i8 %t1, i32 %t5, i8 %t8) {
+; CHECK-LABEL: PR32316:
+; CHECK: # BB#0:
+; CHECK-NEXT: xorl %eax, %eax
+; CHECK-NEXT: testb %dil, %dil
+; CHECK-NEXT: sete %al
+; CHECK-NEXT: cmpl %esi, %eax
+; CHECK-NEXT: seta %al
+; CHECK-NEXT: cmpb $1, %dl
+; CHECK-NEXT: sbbb $-1, %al
+; CHECK-NEXT: retq
+ %t2 = icmp eq i8 %t1, 0
+ %t3 = zext i1 %t2 to i32
+ %t6 = icmp ugt i32 %t3, %t5
+ %t7 = zext i1 %t6 to i8
+ %t9 = icmp ne i8 %t8, 0
+ %t10 = zext i1 %t9 to i8
+ %t11 = add i8 %t7, %t10
+ ret i8 %t11
+}
+