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 0B2603858D32; Mon, 27 Feb 2023 11:23:42 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 0B2603858D32
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1677497022;
	bh=dZIyD4ReTFlnMWqEGofFUP7xGvu7GVfcpLGIOiQagfg=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=IXzF2npadxhL3dj49kI5UzuYs71NmJ0yb5qTOV+R1wdScvUcf/yVR6qDuWzjBzgvo
	 ieptAGvC2rgq3HpD+jkvhQkIgR0Ofw/M5Cn1iVZfsg8XD/Wl26QDWPg8JDetzQCEiA
	 DN2UmVM4sSsx/OlNLhBHKU0xc142iFKTWmXSKAtg=
From: "jakub at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug c/108941] Error: operand type mismatch for `shr' with binutils
 master
Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2023 11:23:41 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: c
X-Bugzilla-Version: 13.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: 
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: RESOLVED
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: INVALID
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-108941-4-t1CKXSXn5G@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-108941-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-108941-4@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
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.sourceware.org>

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D108941

--- Comment #13 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
We could file an x86 backend enhancement request based on those comments,
int
foo (int x, int y)
{
  return x << (y & 31);
}

int
bar (int x, int y)
{
  return x << (32 + y);
}

int
baz (int x, int y)
{
  return x << (-y & 31);
}

int
qux (int x, int y)
{
  return x << (32 - y);
}
where we optimize away the & 31 masks, but actually not the additions of 32=
.=20
It actually doesn't change anything on the number of instructions in this c=
ase,
but bar needs 1 more bytes than equivalent foo and qux even 3 more bytes th=
an
equivalent baz.=