public inbox for gcc-cvs@sourceware.org help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jakub Jelinek <jakub@gcc.gnu.org> To: gcc-cvs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [gcc r13-3439] i386: Fix up BFmode comparisons in conditional moves [PR107322] Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2022 16:35:25 +0000 (GMT) [thread overview] Message-ID: <20221021163525.028723856DC0@sourceware.org> (raw) https://gcc.gnu.org/g:5792208f5124f687376f25798668d105d7ddb270 commit r13-3439-g5792208f5124f687376f25798668d105d7ddb270 Author: Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com> Date: Fri Oct 21 18:34:37 2022 +0200 i386: Fix up BFmode comparisons in conditional moves [PR107322] As the testcase shows, when cbranchbf4/cstorebf4 patterns are defined, we can get ICEs for conditional moves. The problem is that the generic conditional move expansion just calls prepare_cmp_insn which just checks that such a cbranch<mode>4 exists and returns directly such comparison and passes it down to the conditional move optabs. The following patch fixes it by punting if the comparisons aren't ix86_fp_comparison_operator (to tell the generic code it should separately compare) and to handle the promotion of BFmode comparison operands to SFmode such that comparison is performed in SFmode. 2022-10-21 Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com> PR target/107322 * config/i386/i386-expand.cc (ix86_prepare_fp_compare_args): For BFmode comparisons promote arguments to SFmode and recurse. (ix86_expand_int_movcc, ix86_expand_fp_movcc): Return false early if comparison operands are BFmode and operands[1] is not ix86_fp_comparison_operator. * gcc.target/i386/pr107322.c: New test. Diff: --- gcc/config/i386/i386-expand.cc | 37 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr107322.c | 33 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 2 files changed, 70 insertions(+) diff --git a/gcc/config/i386/i386-expand.cc b/gcc/config/i386/i386-expand.cc index 0e8ba144551..5d9e5a12f7e 100644 --- a/gcc/config/i386/i386-expand.cc +++ b/gcc/config/i386/i386-expand.cc @@ -2626,6 +2626,35 @@ ix86_prepare_fp_compare_args (enum rtx_code code, rtx *pop0, rtx *pop1) machine_mode op_mode = GET_MODE (op0); bool is_sse = SSE_FLOAT_MODE_SSEMATH_OR_HF_P (op_mode); + if (op_mode == BFmode) + { + rtx op = gen_lowpart (HImode, op0); + if (CONST_INT_P (op)) + op = simplify_const_unary_operation (FLOAT_EXTEND, SFmode, + op0, BFmode); + else + { + rtx t1 = gen_reg_rtx (SImode); + emit_insn (gen_zero_extendhisi2 (t1, op)); + emit_insn (gen_ashlsi3 (t1, t1, GEN_INT (16))); + op = gen_lowpart (SFmode, t1); + } + *pop0 = op; + op = gen_lowpart (HImode, op1); + if (CONST_INT_P (op)) + op = simplify_const_unary_operation (FLOAT_EXTEND, SFmode, + op1, BFmode); + else + { + rtx t1 = gen_reg_rtx (SImode); + emit_insn (gen_zero_extendhisi2 (t1, op)); + emit_insn (gen_ashlsi3 (t1, t1, GEN_INT (16))); + op = gen_lowpart (SFmode, t1); + } + *pop1 = op; + return ix86_prepare_fp_compare_args (code, pop0, pop1); + } + /* All of the unordered compare instructions only work on registers. The same is true of the fcomi compare instructions. The XFmode compare instructions require registers except when comparing @@ -3164,6 +3193,10 @@ ix86_expand_int_movcc (rtx operands[]) && !TARGET_64BIT)) return false; + if (GET_MODE (op0) == BFmode + && !ix86_fp_comparison_operator (operands[1], VOIDmode)) + return false; + start_sequence (); compare_op = ix86_expand_compare (code, op0, op1); compare_seq = get_insns (); @@ -4238,6 +4271,10 @@ ix86_expand_fp_movcc (rtx operands[]) rtx op0 = XEXP (operands[1], 0); rtx op1 = XEXP (operands[1], 1); + if (GET_MODE (op0) == BFmode + && !ix86_fp_comparison_operator (operands[1], VOIDmode)) + return false; + if (SSE_FLOAT_MODE_SSEMATH_OR_HF_P (mode)) { machine_mode cmode; diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr107322.c b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr107322.c new file mode 100644 index 00000000000..d3d11fe1662 --- /dev/null +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr107322.c @@ -0,0 +1,33 @@ +/* PR target/107322 */ +/* { dg-do compile } */ +/* { dg-options "-fexcess-precision=16 -O -msse2 -mfpmath=sse" } */ + +int i, j; +float k, l; +__bf16 f; + +void +foo (void) +{ + i *= 0 >= f; +} + +void +bar (void) +{ + i *= 0 <= f; +} + +void +baz (int x, int y) +{ + i = 0 >= f ? x : y; + j = 0 <= f ? x + 2 : y + 3; +} + +void +qux (float x, float y) +{ + k = 0 >= f ? x : y; + l = 0 <= f ? x + 2 : y + 3; +}
reply other threads:[~2022-10-21 16:35 UTC|newest] Thread overview: [no followups] expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed
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=20221021163525.028723856DC0@sourceware.org \ --to=jakub@gcc.gnu.org \ --cc=gcc-cvs@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: linkBe 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).