RFR(L) 8026844: Various Math functions needs intrinsification

[Rickard Bäckman]

Vladimir,

thanks for looking at this. I'll remove the part from matcher.cpp then.

On 10/23, Vladimir Kozlov wrote:
> I read this mail after I responded to other one.
> About shared nodes. Yes, loads are always shared and as result we can not combine them with Exact nodes which also shared, as you noticed. But not marking Exact nodes as shared is incorrect because they produce flags. So for these changes I would suggest to leave it without matching exact(reg, mem) version of Mach nodes. We can do additional optimizations later.
> 
> Thanks,
> Vladimir
> 
> > On Oct 22, 2013, at 9:59 AM, Rickard Bäckman <rickard.backman at oracle.com> wrote:
> > 
> > Vladimir,
> > 
> > new webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~rbackman/8026844.1/
> > The diff between webrevs: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~rbackman/8026844.1.diff/
> > (Forgot to add x86_32.ad to that one though).
> > 
> > The reason I didn't implement mulexact(reg, mem) was that we didn't have
> > imull and imulq for (reg, mem). I've added those now.
> > I also noticed that we never generated *Exact(reg, mem) because of a
> > problem in Matcher::find_shared. Since the *Exact nodes have two
> > outputs all inputs of *Exact will be marked as shared. I decided to
> > only push the *Exact-node for the Result unless only the FlagsProj
> > is used.
> > 
> > Thanks
> > 
> >> On 10/18, Vladimir Kozlov wrote:
> >> Rickard,
> >> 
> >> is_MathExactOpcode() could be replaced by adding the node to
> >> DEFINE_CLASS_ID structure as you did with FlagsProj. is_MathExact()
> >> will be true for all its subclasses.
> >> 
> >> Put MathExactNode() constructors together.
> >> 
> >> In library_call.cpp can you name Integer version of method with I:
> >> inline_math_addExactI() to be symmetrical with Long version. And I
> >> don't think you need separate methods for increment and decrement -
> >> path flag to add and sub method.
> >> 
> >> Why you did not implement mulexact(reg, mem) mach nodes?
> >> 
> >> Otherwise it is good.
> >> 
> >> Thanks,
> >> Vladimir
> >> 
> >>> On 10/18/13 2:34 AM, Rickard Bäckman wrote:
> >>> Hi, can I get reviews for the following change:
> >>> 
> >>> This change creates intrinsics for addExact(long, long), subtractExact,
> >>> negateExact, incrementExact, decrementExact and multiplyExact.
> >>> 
> >>> The intrinsics are only added on x86 and only 64-bit has the intrinsics
> >>> for the long-versions. (32-bit only has int-versions).
> >>> 
> >>> Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8026844
> >>> Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~rbackman/8026844/
> >>> 
> >>> Thanks
> >>> /R
> > /R
/R