[x86_64 PATCH] PR target/110104: Missing peephole2 for addcarry<mode>.

[x86_64 PATCH] PR target/110104: Missing peephole2 for addcarry<mode>.

[Roger Sayle]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1484 bytes --]


This patch resolves PR target/110104, a missed optimization on x86 around
adc with memory operands.  In i386.md, there's a peephole2 after the
pattern for *add<mode>3_cc_overflow_1 that converts the sequence
reg = add(reg,mem); mem = reg [where the reg is dead afterwards] into
the equivalent mem = add(mem,reg).  The equivalent peephole2 for adc
is missing (after addcarry<mode>), and is added by this patch.

For the example code provided in the bugzilla PR:

Before:
        movq    %rsi, %rax
        mulq    %rdx
        addq    %rax, (%rdi)
        movq    %rdx, %rax
        adcq    8(%rdi), %rax
        adcq    $0, 16(%rdi)
        movq    %rax, 8(%rdi)
        ret

After:
        movq    %rsi, %rax
        mulq    %rdx
        addq    %rax, (%rdi)
        adcq    %rdx, 8(%rdi)
        adcq    $0, 16(%rdi)
        ret

Note that the addq in this example has been transformed by the
existing peephole2 described above.

This patch has been tested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu with make bootstrap
and make -k check, both with and without --target_board=unix{-m32}
with no new failures.  Ok for mainline?


2023-06-07  Roger Sayle  <roger@nextmovesoftware.com>

gcc/ChangeLog
        PR target/110104
        * config/i386/i386.md (define_peephole2): Transform reg=adc(reg,mem)
        followed by mem=reg into mem=adc(mem,reg) when applicable.

gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
        PR target/110104
        * gcc.target/i386/pr110104.c: New test case.


Thanks in advance,
Roger
--


[-- Attachment #2: patchac.txt --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 2631 bytes --]

diff --git a/gcc/config/i386/i386.md b/gcc/config/i386/i386.md
index e6ebc46..33ec45f 100644
--- a/gcc/config/i386/i386.md
+++ b/gcc/config/i386/i386.md
@@ -7870,6 +7870,51 @@
    (set_attr "pent_pair" "pu")
    (set_attr "mode" "<MODE>")])
 
+;; peephole2 for addcarry<mode> matching one for *add<mode>3_cc_overflow_1.
+;; reg = adc(reg,mem); mem = reg  ->  mem = adc(mem,reg).
+(define_peephole2
+  [(parallel
+    [(set (reg:CCC FLAGS_REG) 
+	  (compare:CCC
+	    (zero_extend:<DWI>
+	      (plus:SWI48
+		(plus:SWI48
+		  (match_operator:SWI48 3 "ix86_carry_flag_operator"
+		    [(match_operand 2 "flags_reg_operand") (const_int 0)])
+		  (match_operand:SWI48 0 "general_reg_operand"))
+		(match_operand:SWI48 1 "memory_operand")))
+	    (plus:<DWI>
+	      (zero_extend:<DWI> (match_dup 1))
+		(match_operator:<DWI> 4 "ix86_carry_flag_operator"
+		  [(match_dup 2) (const_int 0)]))))
+     (set (match_dup 0)
+	  (plus:SWI48 (plus:SWI48 (match_op_dup 3
+				    [(match_dup 2) (const_int 0)])
+				  (match_dup 0))
+		      (match_dup 1)))])
+   (set (match_dup 1) (match_dup 0))]
+  "(TARGET_READ_MODIFY_WRITE || optimize_insn_for_size_p ())
+   && peep2_reg_dead_p (2, operands[0])
+   && !reg_overlap_mentioned_p (operands[0], operands[1])"
+  [(parallel
+    [(set (reg:CCC FLAGS_REG)
+	  (compare:CCC
+	    (zero_extend:<DWI>
+	      (plus:SWI48
+		(plus:SWI48
+		  (match_op_dup 3 [(match_dup 2) (const_int 0)])
+		  (match_dup 1))
+		(match_dup 0)))
+	    (plus:<DWI>
+	      (zero_extend:<DWI> (match_dup 0))
+		(match_op_dup 4
+		  [(match_dup 2) (const_int 0)]))))
+     (set (match_dup 1)
+	  (plus:SWI48 (plus:SWI48 (match_op_dup 3
+				    [(match_dup 2) (const_int 0)])
+				  (match_dup 1))
+		      (match_dup 0)))])])
+
 (define_expand "addcarry<mode>_0"
   [(parallel
      [(set (reg:CCC FLAGS_REG)
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr110104.c b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr110104.c
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..bd814f3
--- /dev/null
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr110104.c
@@ -0,0 +1,16 @@
+/* { dg-do compile { target int128 } } */
+/* { dg-options "-O2" } */
+
+typedef unsigned long long u64;
+typedef unsigned __int128 u128;
+void testcase1(u64 *acc, u64 a, u64 b)
+{
+  u128 res = (u128)a*b;
+  u64 lo = res, hi = res >> 64;
+  unsigned char cf = 0;
+  cf = __builtin_ia32_addcarryx_u64 (cf, lo, acc[0], acc+0);
+  cf = __builtin_ia32_addcarryx_u64 (cf, hi, acc[1], acc+1);
+  cf = __builtin_ia32_addcarryx_u64 (cf,  0, acc[2], acc+2);
+}
+
+/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times "movq" 1 } } */

Re: [x86_64 PATCH] PR target/110104: Missing peephole2 for addcarry<mode>.

[Jakub Jelinek]

On Tue, Jun 06, 2023 at 11:31:42PM +0100, Roger Sayle wrote:
> 
> This patch resolves PR target/110104, a missed optimization on x86 around
> adc with memory operands.  In i386.md, there's a peephole2 after the
> pattern for *add<mode>3_cc_overflow_1 that converts the sequence
> reg = add(reg,mem); mem = reg [where the reg is dead afterwards] into
> the equivalent mem = add(mem,reg).  The equivalent peephole2 for adc
> is missing (after addcarry<mode>), and is added by this patch.
> 
> For the example code provided in the bugzilla PR:

Seems to be pretty much the same as one of the 12 define_peephole2
patterns I've posted in
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2023-June/620821.html

> 2023-06-07  Roger Sayle  <roger@nextmovesoftware.com>
> 
> gcc/ChangeLog
>         PR target/110104
>         * config/i386/i386.md (define_peephole2): Transform reg=adc(reg,mem)
>         followed by mem=reg into mem=adc(mem,reg) when applicable.
> 
> gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
>         PR target/110104
>         * gcc.target/i386/pr110104.c: New test case.

The testcase will be useful though (but I'd go with including
the intrin header and using the intrinsic rather than builtin).

	Jakub

RE: [x86_64 PATCH] PR target/110104: Missing peephole2 for addcarry<mode>.

[Roger Sayle]

Hi Jakub,
Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> Seems to be pretty much the same as one of the 12 define_peephole2
patterns I've posted in
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2023-June/620821.html

Doh!  Impressive work.  I need to study how you handle constant carry flags.
Fingers-crossed that patches that touch both the middle-end and a backend
don't get delayed too long in the review/approval process.

> The testcase will be useful though (but I'd go with including the intrin
header and using the intrinsic rather than builtin).

I find the use of intrin headers a pain when running cc1 under gdb,
requiring additional paths to be
specified with -I etc.  Perhaps there's a trick that I'm missing?
__builtins are more free-standing,
and therefore work with cross-compilers to targets/development environments
that I don't have.

I withdraw my patch.  Please feel free to assign PR 110104 to yourself in
Bugzilla.

Cheers (and thanks),
Roger