From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-472045-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 13047 invoked by alias); 2 Jan 2015 13:38:49 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 13001 invoked by uid 48); 2 Jan 2015 13:38:44 -0000
From: "vekumar at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug target/63949] Aarch64 instruction combiner does not optimize subsi_sxth function as expected (gcc.target/aarch64/extend.c fails)
Date: Fri, 02 Jan 2015 13:38:00 -0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: target
X-Bugzilla-Version: 5.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: missed-optimization
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: vekumar at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: vekumar at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags:
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields:
Message-ID: <bug-63949-4-rEXvPcSgwK@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-63949-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-63949-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-SW-Source: 2015-01/txt/msg00039.txt.bz2

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63949

--- Comment #7 from vekumar at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I ran GCC tests against the patch found one failure. 

int
adds_shift_ext ( long long a, int b, int c)
{
 long long  d = (a + ((long long)b << 3));

  if (d == 0)
    return a + c;
  else
    return b + d + c;
}


The test expects adds generation and before my fix it is generated .
adds_shift_ext:
        adds    x3, x0, x1, sxtw 3      // 11   *adds_extvdi_multp2     [length
= 4]
        beq     .L5     // 12   *condjump       [length = 4]

But now I am generating sign extends with shifts instead of sign extends with
mul in my patch.

adds_shift_ext:
        add     x3, x0, x1, sxtw 3      // 10   *add_extendsi_shft_di   [length
= 4]
        cbz     x3, .L5 // 12   *cbeqdi1        [length = 4]

We don't have *adds_extendsi_shft_di pattern. We have patterns for
adds_extvdi_multp2 that extends an operation over mult.

Adding one will help optimize this case. But my concern is what if other
targets  hits the same issue?