From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48)
 id 065953945C3A; Tue, 13 Apr 2021 15:34:05 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 065953945C3A
From: "luc.vanoostenryck at gmail dot com" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug target/100056] [9/10/11 Regression]  orr + lsl vs. [us]bfiz
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2021 15:34:04 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: target
X-Bugzilla-Version: 9.3.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: missed-optimization
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: luc.vanoostenryck at gmail dot com
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P2
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 9.4
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-100056-4-pTEHyFBfb3@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-100056-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-100056-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-BeenThere: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Gcc-bugs mailing list <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/options/gcc-bugs>,
 <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gcc-bugs>,
 <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2021 15:34:05 -0000

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D100056

--- Comment #4 from Luc Van Oostenryck <luc.vanoostenryck at gmail dot com>=
 ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #3)
> Created attachment 50583 [details]
> gcc11-pr100056.patch
>=20
> Untested fix.

Mmmm, that's working fine for the cases I had but not in
more general cases. I think that the constraint on the AND
may be too tight. For example, changing things slightly to
have a smaller mask:
    int or_lsl_u3(unsigned i) {
        i &=3D 7;
        return i | (i << 11);
    }

still gives:
    or_lsl_u3:
        and     w1, w0, 7
        ubfiz   w0, w0, 11, 3
        orr     w0, w0, w1
        ret

while GCC8 gave the expected:
    or_lsl_u3:
        and     w0, w0, 7
        orr     w0, w0, w0, lsl 11
        ret

In fact, I would tend to think that the AND part should be
removed from your split pattern (some kind of zero-extension
seems to be needed to reproduce the problem but that's all).=