From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-475757-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 12264 invoked by alias); 2 Feb 2015 08:45:48 -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 12228 invoked by uid 48); 2 Feb 2015 08:45:44 -0000
From: "rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug target/64897] Floating-point "and" not optimized on x86-64
Date: Mon, 02 Feb 2015 08:45:00 -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: 4.9.2
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: missed-optimization
X-Bugzilla-Severity: enhancement
X-Bugzilla-Who: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
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: keywords cf_gcctarget bug_status cf_reconfirmed_on everconfirmed
Message-ID: <bug-64897-4-oRRpVBpdCX@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-64897-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-64897-4@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: 2015-02/txt/msg00090.txt.bz2

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64897

Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Keywords|                            |missed-optimization
             Target|                            |x86_64-*-*, i?86-*-*
             Status|UNCONFIRMED                 |NEW
   Last reconfirmed|                            |2015-02-02
     Ever confirmed|0                           |1

--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
We expand from

fand1 (double x)
{
  long unsigned int _2;
  long unsigned int ix.1_4;

  <bb 2>:
  _2 = VIEW_CONVERT_EXPR<long unsigned int>(x_5(D));
  ix.1_4 = _2 & 9223372036854775807;
  x_3 = VIEW_CONVERT_EXPR<double>(ix.1_4);
  return x_3;

so the issue might be as "simple" as that GIMPLE doesn't allow bit operations
on FP operands.

Which makes it a RTL missed optimization (to (and:DF ...)):

(set (reg:DF 90 [ <retval> ])
    (subreg:DF (and:DI (subreg:DI (reg/v:DF 91 [ x ]) 0)
            (const_int 9223372036854775807 [0x7fffffffffffffff])) 0))

unless RTL has the same restriction.

And/or at target missed optimization in case it doesn't provide a AND
instruction
on DFmode (it doesn't as far as I can see).