[Bug tree-optimization/45216] Rotate expressions not recognized at tree level

[Bug tree-optimization/45216] Rotate expressions not recognized at tree level

[kai.extern at gmail dot com]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45216

Kai Henningsen <kai.extern at gmail dot com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |kai.extern at gmail dot com

--- Comment #6 from Kai Henningsen <kai.extern at gmail dot com> 2010-10-03 08:33:20 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> Created attachment 21946 [details]
> Another testcase
> 
> Here is another test case. Here on this x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu system, gcc
> recognizes the rotate for 32 and 64 bits, and fails for 16 and 8 bits.
> Constants or not doesn't seem to make a difference.

I should ad that I tested with "gcc-4.4.real (Ubuntu 4.4.3-4ubuntu5) 4.4.3".

[Bug tree-optimization/45216] Rotate expressions not recognized at tree level

[mickflemm at gmail dot com]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45216

Nick Kossifidis <mickflemm at gmail dot com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |mickflemm at gmail dot com

--- Comment #7 from Nick Kossifidis <mickflemm at gmail dot com> 2012-12-01 01:37:35 UTC ---
In my case it does detect an even more complex scenario but it doesn't detect
it when using integer typedefs from <sys/types.h>, more specifically:

unsigned long rotate_left(unsigned long a, unsigned int shift)
{
        return a << shift | a >> (sizeof(a) * 8 - shift);
}

results

080483d4 <rotate_left>:
 80483d4:    55                       push   %ebp
 80483d5:    89 e5                    mov    %esp,%ebp
 80483d7:    53                       push   %ebx
 80483d8:    8b 45 0c                 mov    0xc(%ebp),%eax
 80483db:    8b 55 08                 mov    0x8(%ebp),%edx
 80483de:    89 d3                    mov    %edx,%ebx
 80483e0:    89 c1                    mov    %eax,%ecx
 80483e2:    d3 c3                    rol    %cl,%ebx
 80483e4:    89 d8                    mov    %ebx,%eax
 80483e6:    5b                       pop    %ebx
 80483e7:    5d                       pop    %ebp
 80483e8:    c3                       ret  

but

u_int64_t rotate_left(u_int64_t a, u_int32_t shift)
{
        return a << shift | a >> (sizeof(a) * 8 - shift);
}

results

080483d4 <rotate_left>:
 80483d4:    55                       push   %ebp
 80483d5:    89 e5                    mov    %esp,%ebp
 80483d7:    56                       push   %esi
 80483d8:    53                       push   %ebx
 80483d9:    83 ec 10                 sub    $0x10,%esp
 80483dc:    8b 45 08                 mov    0x8(%ebp),%eax
 80483df:    89 45 f0                 mov    %eax,-0x10(%ebp)
 80483e2:    8b 45 0c                 mov    0xc(%ebp),%eax
 80483e5:    89 45 f4                 mov    %eax,-0xc(%ebp)
 80483e8:    8b 45 f0                 mov    -0x10(%ebp),%eax
 80483eb:    8b 55 f4                 mov    -0xc(%ebp),%edx
 80483ee:    8b 4d 10                 mov    0x10(%ebp),%ecx
 80483f1:    89 c3                    mov    %eax,%ebx
 80483f3:    89 d6                    mov    %edx,%esi
 80483f5:    0f a5 de                 shld   %cl,%ebx,%esi
 80483f8:    d3 e3                    shl    %cl,%ebx
 80483fa:    f6 c1 20                 test   $0x20,%cl
 80483fd:    74 04                    je     8048403 <ed_rotate_left+0x2f>
 80483ff:    89 de                    mov    %ebx,%esi
 8048401:    31 db                    xor    %ebx,%ebx
 8048403:    b9 40 00 00 00           mov    $0x40,%ecx
 8048408:    2b 4d 10                 sub    0x10(%ebp),%ecx
 804840b:    0f ad d0                 shrd   %cl,%edx,%eax
 804840e:    d3 ea                    shr    %cl,%edx
 8048410:    f6 c1 20                 test   $0x20,%cl
 8048413:    74 04                    je     8048419 <ed_rotate_left+0x45>
 8048415:    89 d0                    mov    %edx,%eax
 8048417:    31 d2                    xor    %edx,%edx
 8048419:    89 c1                    mov    %eax,%ecx
 804841b:    09 d9                    or     %ebx,%ecx
 804841d:    89 4d e8                 mov    %ecx,-0x18(%ebp)
 8048420:    89 d1                    mov    %edx,%ecx
 8048422:    09 f1                    or     %esi,%ecx
 8048424:    89 4d ec                 mov    %ecx,-0x14(%ebp)
 8048427:    8b 45 e8                 mov    -0x18(%ebp),%eax
 804842a:    8b 55 ec                 mov    -0x14(%ebp),%edx
 804842d:    83 c4 10                 add    $0x10,%esp
 8048430:    5b                       pop    %ebx
 8048431:    5e                       pop    %esi
 8048432:    5d                       pop    %ebp
 8048433:    c3                       ret  

Here are the typedefs from <sys/types.h>:

typedef unsigned int u_int32_t __attribute__ ((__mode__ (__SI__)));
typedef unsigned int u_int64_t __attribute__ ((__mode__ (__DI__)));

I also tried with u_int32_t/u_int16_t and other combinations but I get the same
results.

gcc version 4.5.4 (Gentoo 4.5.4 p1.0, pie-0.4.7)

[Bug tree-optimization/45216] Rotate expressions not recognized at tree level

[glisse at gcc dot gnu.org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45216

--- Comment #8 from Marc Glisse <glisse at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-12-01 08:51:12 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #7)
> unsigned long rotate_left(unsigned long a, unsigned int shift)
> {
>         return a << shift | a >> (sizeof(a) * 8 - shift);
> }

We have a regression in C++ in 4.8 there. Comparing -O3 -fdump-tree-optimized
in gcc-4.7, g++-4.7 and gcc-4.8:

  D.1708_3 = a_1(D) r<< shift_2(D);

and in g++-4.8:

  shift.0_2 = (int) shift_1(D);
  _4 = a_3(D) << shift.0_2;
  _5 = 64 - shift_1(D);
  _6 = (int) _5;
  _7 = a_3(D) >> _6;
  _8 = _7 | _4;

[Bug tree-optimization/45216] Rotate expressions not recognized at tree level

[steven at gcc dot gnu.org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45216

Steven Bosscher <steven at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Depends on|                            |57157

--- Comment #9 from Steven Bosscher <steven at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
The patches for bug 57157 may fix this bug also.

[Bug tree-optimization/45216] Rotate expressions not recognized at tree level

[jakub at gcc dot gnu.org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45216

Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org

--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
They certainly mean to.

[Bug tree-optimization/45216] Rotate expressions not recognized at tree level

[jakub at gcc dot gnu.org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45216

--- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Author: jakub
Date: Mon May 13 11:04:26 2013
New Revision: 198823

URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=198823&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
    PR tree-optimization/45216
    PR tree-optimization/57157
    * tree-ssa-forwprop.c (simplify_rotate): Only recognize
    the (-Y) & (B - 1) variant if OP is |.
    * expmed.c (expand_shift_1): For rotations by const0_rtx just
    return shifted.  Use (-op1) & (prec - 1) as other_amount
    instead of prec - op1.

    * c-c++-common/rotate-1.c: Add 32 tests with +.
    * c-c++-common/rotate-1a.c: Adjust.
    * c-c++-common/rotate-2.c: Add 32 tests with +, expect
    only 48 rotates.
    * c-c++-common/rotate-2b.c: New test.
    * c-c++-common/rotate-3.c: Add 32 tests with +.
    * c-c++-common/rotate-4.c: Add 32 tests with +, expect
    only 48 rotates.
    * c-c++-common/rotate-4b.c: New test.
    * c-c++-common/rotate-5.c: New test.

Added:
    trunk/gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/rotate-5.c
Modified:
    trunk/gcc/ChangeLog
    trunk/gcc/expmed.c
    trunk/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
    trunk/gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/rotate-1.c
    trunk/gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/rotate-1a.c
    trunk/gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/rotate-2.c
    trunk/gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/rotate-3.c
    trunk/gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/rotate-4.c
    trunk/gcc/tree-ssa-forwprop.c

[Bug tree-optimization/45216] Rotate expressions not recognized at tree level

[jakub at gcc dot gnu.org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45216

Bug 45216 depends on bug 57157, which changed state.

Bug 57157 Summary: Poor optimization of portable rotate idiom
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57157

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |RESOLVED
         Resolution|---                         |FIXED

[Bug tree-optimization/45216] Rotate expressions not recognized at tree level

[rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #4 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org  2010-08-06 23:41 -------
Fold used to detect these.  Maybe we're now having different conversions
inbetween.


-- 

rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|richard dot guenther at     |rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot
                   |gmail dot com               |org
           Severity|normal                      |enhancement


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45216

[Bug tree-optimization/45216] Rotate expressions not recognized at tree level

[steven at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #3 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org  2010-08-06 23:17 -------
Related to PR17886, where it says that: "gcc can detect the (x << y)|(x >>
(bitwidth-y)) idiom for rotate and convert it into the machine rotate
instruction. But it only works when y is a constant and is not long long." But
apparently even this case is not detected anymore.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45216

[Bug tree-optimization/45216] Rotate expressions not recognized at tree level

[steven at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #2 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org  2010-08-06 23:02 -------
pathetic... :)


-- 

steven at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|UNCONFIRMED                 |NEW
     Ever Confirmed|0                           |1
           Keywords|                            |missed-optimization
   Last reconfirmed|0000-00-00 00:00:00         |2010-08-06 23:02:11
               date|                            |


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45216

[Bug tree-optimization/45216] Rotate expressions not recognized at tree level

[bernds at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #1 from bernds at gcc dot gnu dot org  2010-08-06 22:19 -------
Created an attachment (id=21428)
 --> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=21428&action=view)
A testcase which shows the problem.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45216