public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* [Bug tree-optimization/95922] New: Failure to optimize `((b ^ a) & c) ^ a` to `(a & ~c) | (b & c)` the right way on architectures with andnot
@ 2020-06-26 23:17 gabravier at gmail dot com
  2020-06-29  9:42 ` [Bug middle-end/95922] " rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
                   ` (4 more replies)
  0 siblings, 5 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: gabravier at gmail dot com @ 2020-06-26 23:17 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: gcc-bugs

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95922

            Bug ID: 95922
           Summary: Failure to optimize `((b ^ a) & c) ^ a` to `(a & ~c) |
                    (b & c)` the right way on architectures with andnot
           Product: gcc
           Version: 11.0
            Status: UNCONFIRMED
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P3
         Component: tree-optimization
          Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
          Reporter: gabravier at gmail dot com
  Target Milestone: ---

int f(int a, int b, int c)
{
    return ((b ^ a) & c) ^ a;
}

This can be optimized to `return (a & ~c) | (b & c);` on processors that have
andnot instructions (at least according to LLVM, which does this transformation
on x86 with -mbmi).

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread

* [Bug middle-end/95922] Failure to optimize `((b ^ a) & c) ^ a` to `(a & ~c) | (b & c)` the right way on architectures with andnot
  2020-06-26 23:17 [Bug tree-optimization/95922] New: Failure to optimize `((b ^ a) & c) ^ a` to `(a & ~c) | (b & c)` the right way on architectures with andnot gabravier at gmail dot com
@ 2020-06-29  9:42 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
  2020-11-20 11:06 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
                   ` (3 subsequent siblings)
  4 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2020-06-29  9:42 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: gcc-bugs

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95922

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

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Component|tree-optimization           |middle-end

--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Should be expand-time optimization since on GIMPLE it takes one more
instruction.

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread

* [Bug middle-end/95922] Failure to optimize `((b ^ a) & c) ^ a` to `(a & ~c) | (b & c)` the right way on architectures with andnot
  2020-06-26 23:17 [Bug tree-optimization/95922] New: Failure to optimize `((b ^ a) & c) ^ a` to `(a & ~c) | (b & c)` the right way on architectures with andnot gabravier at gmail dot com
  2020-06-29  9:42 ` [Bug middle-end/95922] " rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2020-11-20 11:06 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
  2020-11-20 15:04 ` gabravier at gmail dot com
                   ` (2 subsequent siblings)
  4 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: jakub at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2020-11-20 11:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: gcc-bugs

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95922

Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org

--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
What would be the advantage of doing that?
Same number of instructions, but with andn 3 bytes longer...

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread

* [Bug middle-end/95922] Failure to optimize `((b ^ a) & c) ^ a` to `(a & ~c) | (b & c)` the right way on architectures with andnot
  2020-06-26 23:17 [Bug tree-optimization/95922] New: Failure to optimize `((b ^ a) & c) ^ a` to `(a & ~c) | (b & c)` the right way on architectures with andnot gabravier at gmail dot com
  2020-06-29  9:42 ` [Bug middle-end/95922] " rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
  2020-11-20 11:06 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2020-11-20 15:04 ` gabravier at gmail dot com
  2021-04-26  1:51 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
  2021-12-27  5:53 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
  4 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: gabravier at gmail dot com @ 2020-11-20 15:04 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: gcc-bugs

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95922

--- Comment #3 from Gabriel Ravier <gabravier at gmail dot com> ---
Hm, I guess with the andn it avoids a move, though that isn't much. I posted
this here months ago actually, so idk really what I was thinking... I guess it
might help in some further transformations, but it seems bad overall yeah.

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread

* [Bug middle-end/95922] Failure to optimize `((b ^ a) & c) ^ a` to `(a & ~c) | (b & c)` the right way on architectures with andnot
  2020-06-26 23:17 [Bug tree-optimization/95922] New: Failure to optimize `((b ^ a) & c) ^ a` to `(a & ~c) | (b & c)` the right way on architectures with andnot gabravier at gmail dot com
                   ` (2 preceding siblings ...)
  2020-11-20 15:04 ` gabravier at gmail dot com
@ 2021-04-26  1:51 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
  2021-12-27  5:53 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
  4 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2021-04-26  1:51 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: gcc-bugs

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95922

Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Severity|normal                      |enhancement

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread

* [Bug middle-end/95922] Failure to optimize `((b ^ a) & c) ^ a` to `(a & ~c) | (b & c)` the right way on architectures with andnot
  2020-06-26 23:17 [Bug tree-optimization/95922] New: Failure to optimize `((b ^ a) & c) ^ a` to `(a & ~c) | (b & c)` the right way on architectures with andnot gabravier at gmail dot com
                   ` (3 preceding siblings ...)
  2021-04-26  1:51 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2021-12-27  5:53 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
  4 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2021-12-27  5:53 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: gcc-bugs

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95922

Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|UNCONFIRMED                 |RESOLVED
         Resolution|---                         |DUPLICATE

--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Dup of bug 94790.

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 94790 ***

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread

end of thread, other threads:[~2021-12-27  5:53 UTC | newest]

Thread overview: 6+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2020-06-26 23:17 [Bug tree-optimization/95922] New: Failure to optimize `((b ^ a) & c) ^ a` to `(a & ~c) | (b & c)` the right way on architectures with andnot gabravier at gmail dot com
2020-06-29  9:42 ` [Bug middle-end/95922] " rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2020-11-20 11:06 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2020-11-20 15:04 ` gabravier at gmail dot com
2021-04-26  1:51 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-12-27  5:53 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org

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).