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 6399F3951C4F; Wed, 10 Mar 2021 16:13:00 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 6399F3951C4F
From: "jakub at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug middle-end/99520] Failure to detect bswap pattern
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2021 16:13:00 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: middle-end
X-Bugzilla-Version: unknown
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: missed-optimization
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
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-99520-4-kvu5pvKjZs@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-99520-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-99520-4@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: <https://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: <https://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gcc-bugs>,
 <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2021 16:13:00 -0000

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D99520

--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Bet handling PLUS_EXPR next to BIT_IOR_EXPR in find_bswap_or_nop_1
and pass_optimize_bswap::execute could do the trick.
Though, I guess for PLUS_EXPR one needs stronger tests in
perform_symbolic_merge.
Because for BIT_IOR_EXPR, it is perfectly fine if the same bytes are ored in
multiple times, but for PLUS_EXPR it obviously is not.
So
      masked1 =3D n1->n & mask;
      masked2 =3D n2->n & mask;
      if (masked1 && masked2 && masked1 !=3D masked2)
        return NULL;
is good enough for BIT_IOR_EXPR, but PLUS_EXPR would need a
      if (masked1 && masked2)
        return NULL;
test.=