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 C3EC6388B03C; Sun, 21 Jun 2020 15:35:40 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org C3EC6388B03C
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
 s=default; t=1592753740;
 bh=XoanTYbPxQbcFVR+IajKhxLscR19KDlS5j1ypkYvgxE=;
 h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
 b=WdXw8bBqdkTn3rPEyAAzsGVByK4t+xQBmO7Za0WTYIgViIPoLd4zPR8gRM9GfHhfI
 8SNpcYrTst+kdBwyl27dgRXUPTLhEDF2d+oLWHNkfn6z2ItVEP5eyUzlOZPigddKgn
 sOliACPJJIorDhi+CKVzQKVphsUQftmBwCOmf3Bs=
From: "wschmidt at linux dot ibm.com" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug target/95737] PPC: Unnecessary extsw after negative less than
Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2020 15:35:40 +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: 8.3.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: missed-optimization
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: wschmidt at linux dot ibm.com
X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED
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-95737-4-G8lSdjTgm3@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-95737-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-95737-4@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
X-BeenThere: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Gcc-bugs mailing list <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/options/gcc-bugs>,
 <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gcc-bugs>,
 <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2020 15:35:40 -0000

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D95737

--- Comment #4 from wschmidt at linux dot ibm.com ---
On 6/19/20 12:43 PM, jens.seifert at de dot ibm.com wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D95737
>
> Jens Seifert <jens.seifert at de dot ibm.com> changed:
>
>             What    |Removed                     |Added
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------=
---
>               Status|RESOLVED                    |UNCONFIRMED
>           Resolution|DUPLICATE                   |---
>
> --- Comment #3 from Jens Seifert <jens.seifert at de dot ibm.com> ---
> This is different as the extsw also happens if the result gets used e.g.
> followed by a andc, which is my case. I obviously oversimplified the samp=
le. It
> has nothing to do with function result and ABI requirements. gcc assume t=
hat
> the result of -(a < b) implemented by subfc, subfe is signed 32-bit. But =
the
> result is already 64-bit.
>
> unsigned long long branchlesconditional(unsigned long long a, unsigned lo=
ng
> long b, unsigned long long c)
> {
>     unsigned long long mask =3D -(a < b);
>     return c &~ mask;
> }
>
> results in
>
> _Z20branchlesconditionalyyy:
> .LFB1:
>          .cfi_startproc
>          subfc 4,4,3
>          subfe 3,3,3
>          not 3,3
>          extsw 3,3
>          and 3,3,5
>          blr
>
> expected
> subfc
> subfe
> andc
>
Thanks for verifying, Jens!=