public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug target/52898] SH Target: Inefficient DImode comparisons
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2012 22:48:00 -0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <bug-52898-4-UlKd4RB8we@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <bug-52898-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52898

--- Comment #1 from Oleg Endo <olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-04-11 22:48:18 UTC ---
Created attachment 27138
  --> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27138
Examples

In addition to the original case, I've noticed that there are more weird things
happening with DImode comparisons in general.  The attached test cases do not
cover all the possible combinations, but basically the -mcbranchdi and
-mcmpeqdi options in combination with -O2 and -Os seem not to behave as
originally intended.
With -O2 the cmpeqdi_t pattern is never used no matter which options are
specified.  I think it is the split below the cmpeqdi_t insn in sh.md, that
does this.  The code of the cmpeqdi_t insn seems already quite optimal, except
that the first cmp / tst insn should be emitted separately to get potentially
better scheduling.

Moreover, there is an unnamed tstdi_t pattern which never gets used by combine.
 What happens there, is that the and:DI is split by the middle-end into 2x
and:SI at a very early stage.  I think this is because there is no and:DI insn
defined.


  reply	other threads:[~2012-04-11 22:48 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2012-04-07 11:18 [Bug target/52898] New: SH Target: Inefficient comparison of DImode and immediate constant olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-04-11 22:48 ` olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org [this message]
2012-04-11 22:52 ` [Bug target/52898] SH Target: Inefficient DImode comparisons olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-04-12  1:13 ` kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-04-12  6:20 ` olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-04-12  7:00 ` olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-09-01 22:47 ` olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-12-07  8:05 ` olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-12-07 10:36 ` kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-12-08 22:16 ` olegendo 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-52898-4-UlKd4RB8we@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).