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 BFDDE3857B83; Tue, 28 Nov 2023 10:55:26 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org BFDDE3857B83
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1701168926;
	bh=1/UIOlVtrwDbf/dIgBkEgC7rH1YXpXM7abLo80hakhA=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=rC+uO01IiWhBa0h7+P25i+0oCpKyB4N7pr7i0D7kga1Ro/2gVPIPnJi0dwWapHdlJ
	 zAZ9lsxG1oiG4EdL+oH0eQmTSZQqON4PhtObaOlfem/soXUJydYHuS3zQwP+Z6tGTN
	 CL9ssmAT4HdZPqmyZYe9BX7HdMSHub3k/Ows0/BY=
From: "rguenther at suse dot de" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/52252] An opportunity for x86 gcc vectorizer
 (gain up to 3 times)
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2023 10:55:24 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: tree-optimization
X-Bugzilla-Version: 4.7.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: missed-optimization
X-Bugzilla-Severity: enhancement
X-Bugzilla-Who: rguenther at suse dot de
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
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-52252-4-6N8fLJesMe@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-52252-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-52252-4@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=3D52252

--- Comment #11 from rguenther at suse dot de <rguenther at suse dot de> ---
On Tue, 28 Nov 2023, pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:

> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D52252
>=20
> Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
>=20
>            What    |Removed                     |Added
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------=
---
>                  CC|                            |pinskia at gcc dot gnu.o=
rg
>=20
> --- Comment #10 from Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
> Note there is also a missing scalar optimization here also (which will im=
prove
> the vectorized version in the end too).
>=20
> Right now we have the following match pattern:
> /* MIN (~X, ~Y) -> ~MAX (X, Y)
>    MAX (~X, ~Y) -> ~MIN (X, Y)  */
> (for minmax (min max)
>  maxmin (max min)
>  (simplify
>   (minmax (bit_not:s@2 @0) (bit_not:s@3 @1))
>   (bit_not (maxmin @0 @1)))
>=20
>=20
> But that does not match here due to the :s. I am not 100% sure but tradin=
g 2
> possible bit_not for adding another might end up improving things ...

We're lacking a way to say one of the bit_not should be single-used,
one multi-use would be OK and a fair trade-off - not sure if that
would be enough here, of course.  That would mena changing to
a condition with single_use ().=