[PATCH] Canonicalize compares in combine [3/3] ARM backend part

[PATCH] Canonicalize compares in combine [3/3] ARM backend part

[Chung-Lin Tang]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 729 bytes --]

Hi Richard, this part's for you.

The ARM backend changes needed are very little after the prior patches,
basically just a case in arm_canonicalize_comparison() to detect
(zero_extend:SI (subreg:QI (reg:SI ...) 0)), and swap it into (and:SI
(reg:SI) #255).

Had we not tried the combine modifications, this testcase probably could
have also be solved by implementing another version of the corresponding
*andsi3_compare0/_scratch patterns, with ZERO_EXTEND in the body, and
"ands" in the output assembly. Maybe that's an acceptable solution too...

About the (ab)use of CANONICALIZE_COMPARISON, if it really should be
another macro/hook, then this ARM patch will need updating, but the code
should be similar.

Thanks,
Chung-Lin

[-- Attachment #2: 3-arm-parts.diff --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 2028 bytes --]

Index: config/arm/arm.c
===================================================================
--- config/arm/arm.c	(revision 172860)
+++ config/arm/arm.c	(working copy)
@@ -3276,6 +3276,19 @@
       return code;
     }
 
+  /* If *op0 is (zero_extend:SI (subreg:QI (reg:SI) 0)) and comparing
+     with const0_rtx, change it to (and:SI (reg:SI) (const_int 255)),
+     to facilitate possible combining with a cmp into 'ands'.  */
+  if (mode == SImode
+      && GET_CODE (*op0) == ZERO_EXTEND
+      && GET_CODE (XEXP (*op0, 0)) == SUBREG
+      && GET_MODE (XEXP (*op0, 0)) == QImode
+      && GET_MODE (SUBREG_REG (XEXP (*op0, 0))) == SImode
+      && SUBREG_BYTE (XEXP (*op0, 0)) == 0
+      && *op1 == const0_rtx)
+    *op0 = gen_rtx_AND (SImode, SUBREG_REG (XEXP (*op0, 0)),
+			GEN_INT (255));
+
   /* Comparisons smaller than DImode.  Only adjust comparisons against
      an out-of-range constant.  */
   if (GET_CODE (*op1) != CONST_INT
Index: testsuite/gcc.target/arm/combine-movs.c
===================================================================
--- testsuite/gcc.target/arm/combine-movs.c	(revision 0)
+++ testsuite/gcc.target/arm/combine-movs.c	(revision 0)
@@ -0,0 +1,10 @@
+/* { dg-options "-O" }  */
+
+void foo (unsigned long r[], unsigned int d)
+{
+  int i, n = d / 32;
+  for (i = 0; i < n; ++i)
+    r[i] = 0;
+}
+
+/* { dg-final { scan-assembler "movs\tr\[0-9\]" } } */
Index: testsuite/gcc.target/arm/unsigned-extend-2.c
===================================================================
--- testsuite/gcc.target/arm/unsigned-extend-2.c	(revision 0)
+++ testsuite/gcc.target/arm/unsigned-extend-2.c	(revision 0)
@@ -0,0 +1,17 @@
+/* { dg-do compile } */
+/* { dg-options "-O -march=armv6" } */
+
+unsigned short foo (unsigned short x)
+{
+  unsigned char i = 0;
+  for (i = 0; i < 8; i++)
+    {
+      x >>= 1;
+      x &= 0x7fff;
+    }
+  return x;
+}
+
+/* { dg-final { scan-assembler "ands" } } */
+/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-not "uxtb" } } */
+/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-not "cmp" } } */

Ping Re: [PATCH] Canonicalize compares in combine [3/3] ARM backend part

[Chung-Lin Tang]

Ping.

On 04/22/2011 11:21 PM, Chung-Lin Tang wrote:
> Hi Richard, this part's for you.
> 
> The ARM backend changes needed are very little after the prior patches,
> basically just a case in arm_canonicalize_comparison() to detect
> (zero_extend:SI (subreg:QI (reg:SI ...) 0)), and swap it into (and:SI
> (reg:SI) #255).
> 
> Had we not tried the combine modifications, this testcase probably could
> have also be solved by implementing another version of the corresponding
> *andsi3_compare0/_scratch patterns, with ZERO_EXTEND in the body, and
> "ands" in the output assembly. Maybe that's an acceptable solution too...
> 
> About the (ab)use of CANONICALIZE_COMPARISON, if it really should be
> another macro/hook, then this ARM patch will need updating, but the code
> should be similar.
> 
> Thanks,
> Chung-Lin

Ping Re: [PATCH] Canonicalize compares in combine [3/3] ARM backend part

[Chung-Lin Tang]

Ping.
On 2011/5/9 11:02 PM, Chung-Lin Tang wrote:
> Ping.
> 
> On 04/22/2011 11:21 PM, Chung-Lin Tang wrote:
>> Hi Richard, this part's for you.
>>
>> The ARM backend changes needed are very little after the prior patches,
>> basically just a case in arm_canonicalize_comparison() to detect
>> (zero_extend:SI (subreg:QI (reg:SI ...) 0)), and swap it into (and:SI
>> (reg:SI) #255).
>>
>> Had we not tried the combine modifications, this testcase probably could
>> have also be solved by implementing another version of the corresponding
>> *andsi3_compare0/_scratch patterns, with ZERO_EXTEND in the body, and
>> "ands" in the output assembly. Maybe that's an acceptable solution too...
>>
>> About the (ab)use of CANONICALIZE_COMPARISON, if it really should be
>> another macro/hook, then this ARM patch will need updating, but the code
>> should be similar.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Chung-Lin
> 

Re: [PATCH] Canonicalize compares in combine [3/3] ARM backend part

[Richard Earnshaw]

On 22/04/11 16:21, Chung-Lin Tang wrote:
> Hi Richard, this part's for you.
> 
> The ARM backend changes needed are very little after the prior patches,
> basically just a case in arm_canonicalize_comparison() to detect
> (zero_extend:SI (subreg:QI (reg:SI ...) 0)), and swap it into (and:SI
> (reg:SI) #255).
> 
> Had we not tried the combine modifications, this testcase probably could
> have also be solved by implementing another version of the corresponding
> *andsi3_compare0/_scratch patterns, with ZERO_EXTEND in the body, and
> "ands" in the output assembly. Maybe that's an acceptable solution too...
> 
> About the (ab)use of CANONICALIZE_COMPARISON, if it really should be
> another macro/hook, then this ARM patch will need updating, but the code
> should be similar.
> 
> Thanks,
> Chung-Lin
> 
> 
> 3-arm-parts.diff
> 
> 
> Index: config/arm/arm.c
> ===================================================================
> --- config/arm/arm.c	(revision 172860)
> +++ config/arm/arm.c	(working copy)
> @@ -3276,6 +3276,19 @@
>        return code;
>      }
>  
> +  /* If *op0 is (zero_extend:SI (subreg:QI (reg:SI) 0)) and comparing
> +     with const0_rtx, change it to (and:SI (reg:SI) (const_int 255)),
> +     to facilitate possible combining with a cmp into 'ands'.  */
> +  if (mode == SImode
> +      && GET_CODE (*op0) == ZERO_EXTEND
> +      && GET_CODE (XEXP (*op0, 0)) == SUBREG
> +      && GET_MODE (XEXP (*op0, 0)) == QImode
> +      && GET_MODE (SUBREG_REG (XEXP (*op0, 0))) == SImode
> +      && SUBREG_BYTE (XEXP (*op0, 0)) == 0
> +      && *op1 == const0_rtx)
> +    *op0 = gen_rtx_AND (SImode, SUBREG_REG (XEXP (*op0, 0)),
> +			GEN_INT (255));
> +

This is wrong for big-endian code.  You should use subreg_lowpart_p to
check the subreg expression (after you've checked that you do have a
subreg, of course).

R.

Re: [PATCH] Canonicalize compares in combine [3/3] ARM backend part

[Chung-Lin Tang]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2236 bytes --]

On 2011/6/15 09:12 PM, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
> On 22/04/11 16:21, Chung-Lin Tang wrote:
>> Hi Richard, this part's for you.
>>
>> The ARM backend changes needed are very little after the prior patches,
>> basically just a case in arm_canonicalize_comparison() to detect
>> (zero_extend:SI (subreg:QI (reg:SI ...) 0)), and swap it into (and:SI
>> (reg:SI) #255).
>>
>> Had we not tried the combine modifications, this testcase probably could
>> have also be solved by implementing another version of the corresponding
>> *andsi3_compare0/_scratch patterns, with ZERO_EXTEND in the body, and
>> "ands" in the output assembly. Maybe that's an acceptable solution too...
>>
>> About the (ab)use of CANONICALIZE_COMPARISON, if it really should be
>> another macro/hook, then this ARM patch will need updating, but the code
>> should be similar.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Chung-Lin
>>
>>
>> 3-arm-parts.diff
>>
>>
>> Index: config/arm/arm.c
>> ===================================================================
>> --- config/arm/arm.c	(revision 172860)
>> +++ config/arm/arm.c	(working copy)
>> @@ -3276,6 +3276,19 @@
>>        return code;
>>      }
>>  
>> +  /* If *op0 is (zero_extend:SI (subreg:QI (reg:SI) 0)) and comparing
>> +     with const0_rtx, change it to (and:SI (reg:SI) (const_int 255)),
>> +     to facilitate possible combining with a cmp into 'ands'.  */
>> +  if (mode == SImode
>> +      && GET_CODE (*op0) == ZERO_EXTEND
>> +      && GET_CODE (XEXP (*op0, 0)) == SUBREG
>> +      && GET_MODE (XEXP (*op0, 0)) == QImode
>> +      && GET_MODE (SUBREG_REG (XEXP (*op0, 0))) == SImode
>> +      && SUBREG_BYTE (XEXP (*op0, 0)) == 0
>> +      && *op1 == const0_rtx)
>> +    *op0 = gen_rtx_AND (SImode, SUBREG_REG (XEXP (*op0, 0)),
>> +			GEN_INT (255));
>> +
> 
> This is wrong for big-endian code.  You should use subreg_lowpart_p to
> check the subreg expression (after you've checked that you do have a
> subreg, of course).
> 
> R.
> 

Hi Richard, thanks for catching that. I've updated the patch, and
cross-tested again under both arm/armeb-Linux.

I changed the testcase to use -march=armv6t2 instead of armv6, as the
latter makes the testcase FAIL when configured as --with-mode=thumb.

Is this now okay?

Thanks,
Chung-Lin

[-- Attachment #2: uxtb-cmp.diff --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 2055 bytes --]

Index: config/arm/arm.c
===================================================================
--- config/arm/arm.c	(revision 176385)
+++ config/arm/arm.c	(working copy)
@@ -3172,6 +3172,19 @@
       return code;
     }
 
+  /* If *op0 is (zero_extend:SI (subreg:QI (reg:SI) 0)) and comparing
+     with const0_rtx, change it to (and:SI (reg:SI) (const_int 255)),
+     to facilitate possible combining with a cmp into 'ands'.  */
+  if (mode == SImode
+      && GET_CODE (*op0) == ZERO_EXTEND
+      && GET_CODE (XEXP (*op0, 0)) == SUBREG
+      && GET_MODE (XEXP (*op0, 0)) == QImode
+      && GET_MODE (SUBREG_REG (XEXP (*op0, 0))) == SImode
+      && subreg_lowpart_p (XEXP (*op0, 0))
+      && *op1 == const0_rtx)
+    *op0 = gen_rtx_AND (SImode, SUBREG_REG (XEXP (*op0, 0)),
+			GEN_INT (255));
+
   /* Comparisons smaller than DImode.  Only adjust comparisons against
      an out-of-range constant.  */
   if (GET_CODE (*op1) != CONST_INT
Index: testsuite/gcc.target/arm/combine-movs.c
===================================================================
--- testsuite/gcc.target/arm/combine-movs.c	(revision 0)
+++ testsuite/gcc.target/arm/combine-movs.c	(revision 0)
@@ -0,0 +1,11 @@
+/* { dg-do compile } */
+/* { dg-options "-O" }  */
+
+void foo (unsigned long r[], unsigned int d)
+{
+  int i, n = d / 32;
+  for (i = 0; i < n; ++i)
+    r[i] = 0;
+}
+
+/* { dg-final { scan-assembler "movs\tr\[0-9\]" } } */
Index: testsuite/gcc.target/arm/unsigned-extend-2.c
===================================================================
--- testsuite/gcc.target/arm/unsigned-extend-2.c	(revision 0)
+++ testsuite/gcc.target/arm/unsigned-extend-2.c	(revision 0)
@@ -0,0 +1,17 @@
+/* { dg-do compile } */
+/* { dg-options "-O -march=armv6t2" } */
+
+unsigned short foo (unsigned short x)
+{
+  unsigned char i = 0;
+  for (i = 0; i < 8; i++)
+    {
+      x >>= 1;
+      x &= 0x7fff;
+    }
+  return x;
+}
+
+/* { dg-final { scan-assembler "ands" } } */
+/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-not "uxtb" } } */
+/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-not "cmp" } } */

Re: [PATCH] Canonicalize compares in combine [3/3] ARM backend part

[Richard Earnshaw]

On 18 Jul 2011, at 07:15, "Chung-Lin Tang" <cltang@codesourcery.com> wrote:

> On 2011/6/15 09:12 PM, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
>> On 22/04/11 16:21, Chung-Lin Tang wrote:
>>> Hi Richard, this part's for you.
>>> 
>>> The ARM backend changes needed are very little after the prior patches,
>>> basically just a case in arm_canonicalize_comparison() to detect
>>> (zero_extend:SI (subreg:QI (reg:SI ...) 0)), and swap it into (and:SI
>>> (reg:SI) #255).
>>> 
>>> Had we not tried the combine modifications, this testcase probably could
>>> have also be solved by implementing another version of the corresponding
>>> *andsi3_compare0/_scratch patterns, with ZERO_EXTEND in the body, and
>>> "ands" in the output assembly. Maybe that's an acceptable solution too...
>>> 
>>> About the (ab)use of CANONICALIZE_COMPARISON, if it really should be
>>> another macro/hook, then this ARM patch will need updating, but the code
>>> should be similar.
>>> 
>>> Thanks,
>>> Chung-Lin
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 3-arm-parts.diff
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Index: config/arm/arm.c
>>> ===================================================================
>>> --- config/arm/arm.c    (revision 172860)
>>> +++ config/arm/arm.c    (working copy)
>>> @@ -3276,6 +3276,19 @@
>>>       return code;
>>>     }
>>> 
>>> +  /* If *op0 is (zero_extend:SI (subreg:QI (reg:SI) 0)) and comparing
>>> +     with const0_rtx, change it to (and:SI (reg:SI) (const_int 255)),
>>> +     to facilitate possible combining with a cmp into 'ands'.  */
>>> +  if (mode == SImode
>>> +      && GET_CODE (*op0) == ZERO_EXTEND
>>> +      && GET_CODE (XEXP (*op0, 0)) == SUBREG
>>> +      && GET_MODE (XEXP (*op0, 0)) == QImode
>>> +      && GET_MODE (SUBREG_REG (XEXP (*op0, 0))) == SImode
>>> +      && SUBREG_BYTE (XEXP (*op0, 0)) == 0
>>> +      && *op1 == const0_rtx)
>>> +    *op0 = gen_rtx_AND (SImode, SUBREG_REG (XEXP (*op0, 0)),
>>> +            GEN_INT (255));
>>> +
>> 
>> This is wrong for big-endian code.  You should use subreg_lowpart_p to
>> check the subreg expression (after you've checked that you do have a
>> subreg, of course).
>> 
>> R.
>> 
> 
> Hi Richard, thanks for catching that. I've updated the patch, and
> cross-tested again under both arm/armeb-Linux.
> 
> I changed the testcase to use -march=armv6t2 instead of armv6, as the
> latter makes the testcase FAIL when configured as --with-mode=thumb.
> 
> Is this now okay?
> 

The patch to arm.c is ok, but the change to the test is not as it will cause problems with multilib testing.  A better fix is to skip the test if the target is thumb1.

The other test needs a similar check as it seems to expect a movs instruction.

R.

> Thanks,
> Chung-Lin
> <uxtb-cmp.diff>

Re: [PATCH] Canonicalize compares in combine [3/3] ARM backend part

[Chung-Lin Tang]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 586 bytes --]

On 2011/7/18 04:46 PM, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
> The patch to arm.c is ok, but the change to the test is not as it will cause problems with multilib testing.  A better fix is to skip the test if the target is thumb1.
> 
> The other test needs a similar check as it seems to expect a movs instruction.
> 
> R.

Yes it seems more logical to skip for thumb1, at least for the movs one.
For the uxtb test, I think probably using "dg-require-effective-target
arm_thumb2_ok" would be more suitable wrt multilib testing.

Updated patch for the testcase parts, is this okay?

Thanks,
Chung-Lin

[-- Attachment #2: testcase.diff --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 1039 bytes --]

Index: combine-movs.c
===================================================================
--- combine-movs.c	(revision 0)
+++ combine-movs.c	(revision 0)
@@ -0,0 +1,12 @@
+/* { dg-do compile } */
+/* { dg-skip-if "" { arm_thumb1 } } */
+/* { dg-options "-O" }  */
+
+void foo (unsigned long r[], unsigned int d)
+{
+  int i, n = d / 32;
+  for (i = 0; i < n; ++i)
+    r[i] = 0;
+}
+
+/* { dg-final { scan-assembler "movs\tr\[0-9\]" } } */
Index: unsigned-extend-2.c
===================================================================
--- unsigned-extend-2.c	(revision 0)
+++ unsigned-extend-2.c	(revision 0)
@@ -0,0 +1,18 @@
+/* { dg-do compile } */
+/* { dg-require-effective-target arm_thumb2_ok } */
+/* { dg-options "-O" } */
+
+unsigned short foo (unsigned short x)
+{
+  unsigned char i = 0;
+  for (i = 0; i < 8; i++)
+    {
+      x >>= 1;
+      x &= 0x7fff;
+    }
+  return x;
+}
+
+/* { dg-final { scan-assembler "ands" } } */
+/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-not "uxtb" } } */
+/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-not "cmp" } } */

Re: [PATCH] Canonicalize compares in combine [3/3] ARM backend part

[Richard Earnshaw]

On 18/07/11 14:10, Chung-Lin Tang wrote:
> On 2011/7/18 04:46 PM, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
>> The patch to arm.c is ok, but the change to the test is not as it will cause problems with multilib testing.  A better fix is to skip the test if the target is thumb1.
>>
>> The other test needs a similar check as it seems to expect a movs instruction.
>>
>> R.
> 
> Yes it seems more logical to skip for thumb1, at least for the movs one.
> For the uxtb test, I think probably using "dg-require-effective-target
> arm_thumb2_ok" would be more suitable wrt multilib testing.
> 
> Updated patch for the testcase parts, is this okay?
> 
> Thanks,
> Chung-Lin
> 

OK.

R.

> 
> testcase.diff
> 
> 
> Index: combine-movs.c
> ===================================================================
> --- combine-movs.c	(revision 0)
> +++ combine-movs.c	(revision 0)
> @@ -0,0 +1,12 @@
> +/* { dg-do compile } */
> +/* { dg-skip-if "" { arm_thumb1 } } */
> +/* { dg-options "-O" }  */
> +
> +void foo (unsigned long r[], unsigned int d)
> +{
> +  int i, n = d / 32;
> +  for (i = 0; i < n; ++i)
> +    r[i] = 0;
> +}
> +
> +/* { dg-final { scan-assembler "movs\tr\[0-9\]" } } */
> Index: unsigned-extend-2.c
> ===================================================================
> --- unsigned-extend-2.c	(revision 0)
> +++ unsigned-extend-2.c	(revision 0)
> @@ -0,0 +1,18 @@
> +/* { dg-do compile } */
> +/* { dg-require-effective-target arm_thumb2_ok } */
> +/* { dg-options "-O" } */
> +
> +unsigned short foo (unsigned short x)
> +{
> +  unsigned char i = 0;
> +  for (i = 0; i < 8; i++)
> +    {
> +      x >>= 1;
> +      x &= 0x7fff;
> +    }
> +  return x;
> +}
> +
> +/* { dg-final { scan-assembler "ands" } } */
> +/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-not "uxtb" } } */
> +/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-not "cmp" } } */