public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "ibuclaw at gdcproject dot org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug target/107671] i386: Missed optimization: use of bt in bit test pattern (using -O2 -mtune=core2)
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2022 16:19:02 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <bug-107671-4-WL5xA5WfkT@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <bug-107671-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107671
--- Comment #5 from Iain Buclaw <ibuclaw at gdcproject dot org> ---
(In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #4)
> from:
> movl %esi, %ecx
> movl $1, %eax
> sall %cl, %eax
> testl %edi, %eax
> setne %al
> movzbl %al, %eax
>
> to:
> xorl %eax, %eax
> btl %esi, %edi
> setc %al
>
> The patch adapts *jcc_bt patterns to similar *scc_bt patterns.
Thanks, have been tinkering with the pointer index version, and found that I
can coax scc_bt_mask to match if I cast the lhs to a signed type. It's not
obvious to me why there would be a difference.
return ((__INT32_TYPE__)p[bitnum >> 5] & (1 << (bitnum & 31))) != 0;
movl %esi, %eax
shrl $5, %eax
movl (%rdi,%rax,4), %eax
btl %esi, %eax
setc %al
Things get even stranger once I expand to "bit test and op" variants though
(better to put in another PR though)
__INT32_TYPE__ btc32(__UINT32_TYPE__ *p, __UINT32_TYPE__ bitnum)
{
__INT32_TYPE__ result = ((__INT32_TYPE__)p[bitnum >> 5]
& (1 << (bitnum & 31))) != 0;
p[bitnum >> 5] ^= 1 << (bitnum & 31);
return result;
}
Patch changes code-gen in the following way.
from:
movl %esi, %eax
movl %esi, %ecx
shrl $5, %eax
leaq (%rdi,%rax,4), %rdx
movl (%rdx), %eax
movl %eax, %esi
sarl %cl, %eax
btcl %ecx, %esi
andl $1, %eax
movl %esi, (%rdx)
to:
movl %esi, %eax
shrl $5, %eax
leaq (%rdi,%rax,4), %rdx
movl (%rdx), %eax
movl %eax, %ecx
btcl %esi, %ecx
btl %esi, %eax
setc %al
movl %ecx, (%rdx)
movzbl %al, %eax
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-11-15 16:19 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-11-14 3:38 [Bug target/107671] New: i386: Missed optimization: use of bt in bit test pattern when LHS is an array index ibuclaw at gdcproject dot org
2022-11-14 3:44 ` [Bug target/107671] i386: Missed optimization: use of bt in bit test pattern (using -O2 -mtune=core2) ibuclaw at gdcproject dot org
2022-11-14 4:00 ` ibuclaw at gdcproject dot org
2022-11-15 1:27 ` crazylht at gmail dot com
2022-11-15 13:15 ` ubizjak at gmail dot com
2022-11-15 16:19 ` ibuclaw at gdcproject dot org [this message]
2023-11-12 22:41 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-11-12 22:46 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=bug-107671-4-WL5xA5WfkT@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ \
--to=gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).