From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48) id 6C7A0385800D; Fri, 5 Mar 2021 00:05:10 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 6C7A0385800D From: "pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/99396] std::rotl and std::rotr do not invoke intrinsics, leading to serious performance issues Date: Fri, 05 Mar 2021 00:05:10 +0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: tree-optimization X-Bugzilla-Version: 11.0 X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW 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: component bug_status everconfirmed cf_reconfirmed_on Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: 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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 05 Mar 2021 00:05:10 -0000 https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D99396 Andrew Pinski changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Component|libstdc++ |tree-optimization Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Ever confirmed|0 |1 Last reconfirmed| |2021-03-05 --- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski --- return std::rotr(v,((unsigned int)t)&63); Fixes the problem .... int a =3D std::abs(t); a &=3D 63; return std::rotr(v,a); Also improves the situtation. I am thinking the std::rotr could be rewritten or we could optimize this at= the tree level into the almost the intrinsics. Note I think I Might have gotten the above incorrect a little bit.=