public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "koenigni at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug rtl-optimization/98425] New: Superfluous sign-extend for constrained integer
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2020 10:19:15 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <bug-98425-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> (raw)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98425

            Bug ID: 98425
           Summary: Superfluous sign-extend for constrained integer
           Product: gcc
           Version: 11.0
            Status: UNCONFIRMED
          Severity: enhancement
          Priority: P3
         Component: rtl-optimization
          Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
          Reporter: koenigni at gcc dot gnu.org
  Target Milestone: ---

Hello everyone,

A small missed optimization I noticed while toying around with the difference
between signed and unsigned integers. The following code

int
baz(int *p, int i) {
  int j;
  if (i >= 0) {
    j = i + 4;
    return p[j];
  } else
    __builtin_unreachable();
}

is compiled with `gcc -O3 -S` to

baz:
  addl  $4, %esi
  movslq  %esi, %rsi
  movl  (%rdi,%rsi,4), %eax
  ret

The movslq instruction is unnecessary since i is constrained to never be
negative and therefore no sign extension is needed. This probably also prevents
the addl instructions to be removed and the offset being put into the movl. 

For comparison, clang (with the same options) compiles the code to 

baz:
  movl %esi, %eax
  movl 16(%rdi, %rax, 4), %eax
  ret

Optimal would probably be

baz:
  movl 16(%rdi, %rsi, 4), %eax
  ret

             reply	other threads:[~2020-12-23 10:19 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-12-23 10:19 koenigni at gcc dot gnu.org [this message]
2020-12-23 10:28 ` [Bug rtl-optimization/98425] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
2020-12-23 10:30 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
2020-12-23 10:30 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2020-12-23 10:40 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2020-12-23 10:48 ` koenigni 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-98425-4@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).