* [PATCH 1/3]rs6000: NFC use more readable pattern to clean high 32 bits
@ 2022-12-01 1:36 Jiufu Guo
2022-12-01 1:36 ` [PATCH 2/3]rs6000: NFC use sext_hwi to replace ((v&0xf..f)^0x80..0) - 0x80..0 Jiufu Guo
2022-12-01 1:36 ` [PATCH 3/3]rs6000: NFC no need copy_rtx in rs6000_emit_set_long_const and rs6000_emit_set_const Jiufu Guo
0 siblings, 2 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: Jiufu Guo @ 2022-12-01 1:36 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-patches; +Cc: segher, dje.gcc, linkw, guojiufu
Hi,
This patch is just using a more readable pattern for "rldicl x,x,0,32"
to clean high 32bits.
Old pattern looks like: r118:DI=zero_extend(r120:DI#0)
new pattern looks like: r118:DI=r120:DI&0xffffffff
Bootstrap and regtest pass on ppc64{,le}.
Is this ok for trunk?
BR,
Jeff (Jiufu)
gcc/ChangeLog:
* config/rs6000/rs6000.cc (rs6000_emit_set_long_const): Update
zero_extend(reg:DI#0) to reg:DI&0xffffffff.
---
gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.cc | 5 +----
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.cc b/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.cc
index eb7ad5e954f..5efe9b22d8b 100644
--- a/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.cc
+++ b/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.cc
@@ -10267,10 +10267,7 @@ rs6000_emit_set_long_const (rtx dest, HOST_WIDE_INT c)
emit_move_insn (copy_rtx (temp),
gen_rtx_IOR (DImode, copy_rtx (temp),
GEN_INT (ud1)));
- emit_move_insn (dest,
- gen_rtx_ZERO_EXTEND (DImode,
- gen_lowpart (SImode,
- copy_rtx (temp))));
+ emit_move_insn (dest, gen_rtx_AND (DImode, temp, GEN_INT (0xffffffff)));
}
else if (ud1 == ud3 && ud2 == ud4)
{
--
2.17.1
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread* [PATCH 2/3]rs6000: NFC use sext_hwi to replace ((v&0xf..f)^0x80..0) - 0x80..0 2022-12-01 1:36 [PATCH 1/3]rs6000: NFC use more readable pattern to clean high 32 bits Jiufu Guo @ 2022-12-01 1:36 ` Jiufu Guo 2022-12-01 5:17 ` Kewen.Lin 2022-12-01 1:36 ` [PATCH 3/3]rs6000: NFC no need copy_rtx in rs6000_emit_set_long_const and rs6000_emit_set_const Jiufu Guo 1 sibling, 1 reply; 16+ messages in thread From: Jiufu Guo @ 2022-12-01 1:36 UTC (permalink / raw) To: gcc-patches; +Cc: segher, dje.gcc, linkw, guojiufu Hi, This patch just uses sext_hwi to replace the expression like: ((value & 0xf..f) ^ 0x80..0) - 0x80..0 for rs6000.cc and rs6000.md. Bootstrap & regtest pass on ppc64{,le}. Is this ok for trunk? BR, Jeff (Jiufu) gcc/ChangeLog: * config/rs6000/rs6000.cc (num_insns_constant_gpr): Use sext_hwi. (darwin_rs6000_legitimate_lo_sum_const_p): Likewise. (mem_operand_gpr): Likewise. (mem_operand_ds_form): Likewise. (rs6000_legitimize_address): Likewise. (rs6000_emit_set_const): Likewise. (rs6000_emit_set_long_const): Likewise. (print_operand): Likewise. * config/rs6000/rs6000.md: Likewise. --- gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.cc | 30 +++++++++++++----------------- gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.md | 10 +++++----- 2 files changed, 18 insertions(+), 22 deletions(-) diff --git a/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.cc b/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.cc index 5efe9b22d8b..718072cc9a1 100644 --- a/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.cc +++ b/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.cc @@ -6021,7 +6021,7 @@ num_insns_constant_gpr (HOST_WIDE_INT value) else if (TARGET_POWERPC64) { - HOST_WIDE_INT low = ((value & 0xffffffff) ^ 0x80000000) - 0x80000000; + HOST_WIDE_INT low = sext_hwi (value, 32); HOST_WIDE_INT high = value >> 31; if (high == 0 || high == -1) @@ -8456,7 +8456,7 @@ darwin_rs6000_legitimate_lo_sum_const_p (rtx x, machine_mode mode) } /* We only care if the access(es) would cause a change to the high part. */ - offset = ((offset & 0xffff) ^ 0x8000) - 0x8000; + offset = sext_hwi (offset, 16); return SIGNED_16BIT_OFFSET_EXTRA_P (offset, extra); } @@ -8522,7 +8522,7 @@ mem_operand_gpr (rtx op, machine_mode mode) if (GET_CODE (addr) == LO_SUM) /* For lo_sum addresses, we must allow any offset except one that causes a wrap, so test only the low 16 bits. */ - offset = ((offset & 0xffff) ^ 0x8000) - 0x8000; + offset = sext_hwi (offset, 16); return SIGNED_16BIT_OFFSET_EXTRA_P (offset, extra); } @@ -8562,7 +8562,7 @@ mem_operand_ds_form (rtx op, machine_mode mode) if (GET_CODE (addr) == LO_SUM) /* For lo_sum addresses, we must allow any offset except one that causes a wrap, so test only the low 16 bits. */ - offset = ((offset & 0xffff) ^ 0x8000) - 0x8000; + offset = sext_hwi (offset, 16); return SIGNED_16BIT_OFFSET_EXTRA_P (offset, extra); } @@ -9136,7 +9136,7 @@ rs6000_legitimize_address (rtx x, rtx oldx ATTRIBUTE_UNUSED, { HOST_WIDE_INT high_int, low_int; rtx sum; - low_int = ((INTVAL (XEXP (x, 1)) & 0xffff) ^ 0x8000) - 0x8000; + low_int = sext_hwi (INTVAL (XEXP (x, 1)), 16); if (low_int >= 0x8000 - extra) low_int = 0; high_int = INTVAL (XEXP (x, 1)) - low_int; @@ -10203,7 +10203,7 @@ rs6000_emit_set_const (rtx dest, rtx source) lo = operand_subword_force (dest, WORDS_BIG_ENDIAN != 0, DImode); emit_move_insn (hi, GEN_INT (c >> 32)); - c = ((c & 0xffffffff) ^ 0x80000000) - 0x80000000; + c = sext_hwi (c, 32); emit_move_insn (lo, GEN_INT (c)); } else @@ -10242,7 +10242,7 @@ rs6000_emit_set_long_const (rtx dest, HOST_WIDE_INT c) if ((ud4 == 0xffff && ud3 == 0xffff && ud2 == 0xffff && (ud1 & 0x8000)) || (ud4 == 0 && ud3 == 0 && ud2 == 0 && ! (ud1 & 0x8000))) - emit_move_insn (dest, GEN_INT ((ud1 ^ 0x8000) - 0x8000)); + emit_move_insn (dest, GEN_INT (sext_hwi (ud1, 16))); else if ((ud4 == 0xffff && ud3 == 0xffff && (ud2 & 0x8000)) || (ud4 == 0 && ud3 == 0 && ! (ud2 & 0x8000))) @@ -10250,7 +10250,7 @@ rs6000_emit_set_long_const (rtx dest, HOST_WIDE_INT c) temp = !can_create_pseudo_p () ? dest : gen_reg_rtx (DImode); emit_move_insn (ud1 != 0 ? copy_rtx (temp) : dest, - GEN_INT (((ud2 << 16) ^ 0x80000000) - 0x80000000)); + GEN_INT (sext_hwi (ud2 << 16, 32))); if (ud1 != 0) emit_move_insn (dest, gen_rtx_IOR (DImode, copy_rtx (temp), @@ -10261,8 +10261,7 @@ rs6000_emit_set_long_const (rtx dest, HOST_WIDE_INT c) temp = !can_create_pseudo_p () ? dest : gen_reg_rtx (DImode); gcc_assert (ud2 & 0x8000); - emit_move_insn (copy_rtx (temp), - GEN_INT (((ud2 << 16) ^ 0x80000000) - 0x80000000)); + emit_move_insn (copy_rtx (temp), GEN_INT (sext_hwi (ud2 << 16, 32))); if (ud1 != 0) emit_move_insn (copy_rtx (temp), gen_rtx_IOR (DImode, copy_rtx (temp), @@ -10273,7 +10272,7 @@ rs6000_emit_set_long_const (rtx dest, HOST_WIDE_INT c) { temp = !can_create_pseudo_p () ? dest : gen_reg_rtx (DImode); HOST_WIDE_INT num = (ud2 << 16) | ud1; - rs6000_emit_set_long_const (temp, (num ^ 0x80000000) - 0x80000000); + rs6000_emit_set_long_const (temp, sext_hwi (num, 32)); rtx one = gen_rtx_AND (DImode, temp, GEN_INT (0xffffffff)); rtx two = gen_rtx_ASHIFT (DImode, temp, GEN_INT (32)); emit_move_insn (dest, gen_rtx_IOR (DImode, one, two)); @@ -10283,8 +10282,7 @@ rs6000_emit_set_long_const (rtx dest, HOST_WIDE_INT c) { temp = !can_create_pseudo_p () ? dest : gen_reg_rtx (DImode); - emit_move_insn (copy_rtx (temp), - GEN_INT (((ud3 << 16) ^ 0x80000000) - 0x80000000)); + emit_move_insn (copy_rtx (temp), GEN_INT (sext_hwi (ud3 << 16, 32))); if (ud2 != 0) emit_move_insn (copy_rtx (temp), gen_rtx_IOR (DImode, copy_rtx (temp), @@ -10336,8 +10334,7 @@ rs6000_emit_set_long_const (rtx dest, HOST_WIDE_INT c) { temp = !can_create_pseudo_p () ? dest : gen_reg_rtx (DImode); - emit_move_insn (copy_rtx (temp), - GEN_INT (((ud4 << 16) ^ 0x80000000) - 0x80000000)); + emit_move_insn (copy_rtx (temp), GEN_INT (sext_hwi (ud4 << 16, 32))); if (ud3 != 0) emit_move_insn (copy_rtx (temp), gen_rtx_IOR (DImode, copy_rtx (temp), @@ -14167,8 +14164,7 @@ print_operand (FILE *file, rtx x, int code) /* If constant, low-order 16 bits of constant, signed. Otherwise, write normally. */ if (INT_P (x)) - fprintf (file, HOST_WIDE_INT_PRINT_DEC, - ((INTVAL (x) & 0xffff) ^ 0x8000) - 0x8000); + fprintf (file, HOST_WIDE_INT_PRINT_DEC, sext_hwi (INTVAL (x), 16)); else print_operand (file, x, 0); return; diff --git a/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.md b/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.md index 3bae303086b..4bd1dfd3da9 100644 --- a/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.md +++ b/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.md @@ -1787,7 +1787,7 @@ (define_expand "add<mode>3" } HOST_WIDE_INT val = INTVAL (operands[2]); - HOST_WIDE_INT low = ((val & 0xffff) ^ 0x8000) - 0x8000; + HOST_WIDE_INT low = sext_hwi (val, 16); HOST_WIDE_INT rest = trunc_int_for_mode (val - low, <MODE>mode); if (<MODE>mode == DImode && !satisfies_constraint_L (GEN_INT (rest))) @@ -1930,7 +1930,7 @@ (define_split (set (match_dup 0) (plus:GPR (match_dup 0) (match_dup 4)))] { HOST_WIDE_INT val = INTVAL (operands[2]); - HOST_WIDE_INT low = ((val & 0xffff) ^ 0x8000) - 0x8000; + HOST_WIDE_INT low = sext_hwi (val, 16); HOST_WIDE_INT rest = trunc_int_for_mode (val - low, <MODE>mode); operands[4] = GEN_INT (low); @@ -8213,7 +8213,7 @@ (define_split operands[2] = operand_subword (operands[0], endian, 0, <MODE>mode); operands[3] = operand_subword (operands[0], 1 - endian, 0, <MODE>mode); operands[4] = GEN_INT (value >> 32); - operands[1] = GEN_INT (((value & 0xffffffff) ^ 0x80000000) - 0x80000000); + operands[1] = GEN_INT (sext_hwi (value, 32)); }) (define_split @@ -9577,7 +9577,7 @@ (define_split operands[3] = operand_subword_force (operands[0], WORDS_BIG_ENDIAN != 0, DImode); operands[4] = GEN_INT (value >> 32); - operands[1] = GEN_INT (((value & 0xffffffff) ^ 0x80000000) - 0x80000000); + operands[1] = GEN_INT (sext_hwi (value, 32)); }) (define_split @@ -12425,7 +12425,7 @@ (define_peephole2 SImode, operands[1], operands[2]); HOST_WIDE_INT c = INTVAL (cnst); - HOST_WIDE_INT sextc = ((c & 0xffff) ^ 0x8000) - 0x8000; + HOST_WIDE_INT sextc = sext_hwi (c, 16); HOST_WIDE_INT xorv = c ^ sextc; operands[9] = GEN_INT (xorv); -- 2.17.1 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 2/3]rs6000: NFC use sext_hwi to replace ((v&0xf..f)^0x80..0) - 0x80..0 2022-12-01 1:36 ` [PATCH 2/3]rs6000: NFC use sext_hwi to replace ((v&0xf..f)^0x80..0) - 0x80..0 Jiufu Guo @ 2022-12-01 5:17 ` Kewen.Lin 2022-12-01 5:30 ` Kewen.Lin 2022-12-01 5:35 ` Jiufu Guo 0 siblings, 2 replies; 16+ messages in thread From: Kewen.Lin @ 2022-12-01 5:17 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Jiufu Guo; +Cc: segher, dje.gcc, linkw, gcc-patches Hi Jeff, on 2022/12/1 09:36, Jiufu Guo wrote: > Hi, > > This patch just uses sext_hwi to replace the expression like: > ((value & 0xf..f) ^ 0x80..0) - 0x80..0 for rs6000.cc and rs6000.md. > > Bootstrap & regtest pass on ppc64{,le}. > Is this ok for trunk? You didn't say it clearly but I guessed you have grepped in the whole config/rs6000 directory, right? I noticed there are still two places using this kind of expression in function constant_generates_xxspltiw, but I assumed it's intentional as their types are not HOST_WIDE_INT. gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.cc: short sign_h_word = ((h_word & 0xffff) ^ 0x8000) - 0x8000; gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.cc: int sign_word = ((word & 0xffffffff) ^ 0x80000000) - 0x80000000; If so, could you state it clearly in commit log like "with type signed/unsigned HOST_WIDE_INT" or similar? This patch is OK once the above question gets confirmed, thanks! BR, Kewen > > BR, > Jeff (Jiufu) > > gcc/ChangeLog: > > * config/rs6000/rs6000.cc (num_insns_constant_gpr): Use sext_hwi. > (darwin_rs6000_legitimate_lo_sum_const_p): Likewise. > (mem_operand_gpr): Likewise. > (mem_operand_ds_form): Likewise. > (rs6000_legitimize_address): Likewise. > (rs6000_emit_set_const): Likewise. > (rs6000_emit_set_long_const): Likewise. > (print_operand): Likewise. > * config/rs6000/rs6000.md: Likewise. > > --- > gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.cc | 30 +++++++++++++----------------- > gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.md | 10 +++++----- > 2 files changed, 18 insertions(+), 22 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.cc b/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.cc > index 5efe9b22d8b..718072cc9a1 100644 > --- a/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.cc > +++ b/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.cc > @@ -6021,7 +6021,7 @@ num_insns_constant_gpr (HOST_WIDE_INT value) > > else if (TARGET_POWERPC64) > { > - HOST_WIDE_INT low = ((value & 0xffffffff) ^ 0x80000000) - 0x80000000; > + HOST_WIDE_INT low = sext_hwi (value, 32); > HOST_WIDE_INT high = value >> 31; > > if (high == 0 || high == -1) > @@ -8456,7 +8456,7 @@ darwin_rs6000_legitimate_lo_sum_const_p (rtx x, machine_mode mode) > } > > /* We only care if the access(es) would cause a change to the high part. */ > - offset = ((offset & 0xffff) ^ 0x8000) - 0x8000; > + offset = sext_hwi (offset, 16); > return SIGNED_16BIT_OFFSET_EXTRA_P (offset, extra); > } > > @@ -8522,7 +8522,7 @@ mem_operand_gpr (rtx op, machine_mode mode) > if (GET_CODE (addr) == LO_SUM) > /* For lo_sum addresses, we must allow any offset except one that > causes a wrap, so test only the low 16 bits. */ > - offset = ((offset & 0xffff) ^ 0x8000) - 0x8000; > + offset = sext_hwi (offset, 16); > > return SIGNED_16BIT_OFFSET_EXTRA_P (offset, extra); > } > @@ -8562,7 +8562,7 @@ mem_operand_ds_form (rtx op, machine_mode mode) > if (GET_CODE (addr) == LO_SUM) > /* For lo_sum addresses, we must allow any offset except one that > causes a wrap, so test only the low 16 bits. */ > - offset = ((offset & 0xffff) ^ 0x8000) - 0x8000; > + offset = sext_hwi (offset, 16); > > return SIGNED_16BIT_OFFSET_EXTRA_P (offset, extra); > } > @@ -9136,7 +9136,7 @@ rs6000_legitimize_address (rtx x, rtx oldx ATTRIBUTE_UNUSED, > { > HOST_WIDE_INT high_int, low_int; > rtx sum; > - low_int = ((INTVAL (XEXP (x, 1)) & 0xffff) ^ 0x8000) - 0x8000; > + low_int = sext_hwi (INTVAL (XEXP (x, 1)), 16); > if (low_int >= 0x8000 - extra) > low_int = 0; > high_int = INTVAL (XEXP (x, 1)) - low_int; > @@ -10203,7 +10203,7 @@ rs6000_emit_set_const (rtx dest, rtx source) > lo = operand_subword_force (dest, WORDS_BIG_ENDIAN != 0, > DImode); > emit_move_insn (hi, GEN_INT (c >> 32)); > - c = ((c & 0xffffffff) ^ 0x80000000) - 0x80000000; > + c = sext_hwi (c, 32); > emit_move_insn (lo, GEN_INT (c)); > } > else > @@ -10242,7 +10242,7 @@ rs6000_emit_set_long_const (rtx dest, HOST_WIDE_INT c) > > if ((ud4 == 0xffff && ud3 == 0xffff && ud2 == 0xffff && (ud1 & 0x8000)) > || (ud4 == 0 && ud3 == 0 && ud2 == 0 && ! (ud1 & 0x8000))) > - emit_move_insn (dest, GEN_INT ((ud1 ^ 0x8000) - 0x8000)); > + emit_move_insn (dest, GEN_INT (sext_hwi (ud1, 16))); > > else if ((ud4 == 0xffff && ud3 == 0xffff && (ud2 & 0x8000)) > || (ud4 == 0 && ud3 == 0 && ! (ud2 & 0x8000))) > @@ -10250,7 +10250,7 @@ rs6000_emit_set_long_const (rtx dest, HOST_WIDE_INT c) > temp = !can_create_pseudo_p () ? dest : gen_reg_rtx (DImode); > > emit_move_insn (ud1 != 0 ? copy_rtx (temp) : dest, > - GEN_INT (((ud2 << 16) ^ 0x80000000) - 0x80000000)); > + GEN_INT (sext_hwi (ud2 << 16, 32))); > if (ud1 != 0) > emit_move_insn (dest, > gen_rtx_IOR (DImode, copy_rtx (temp), > @@ -10261,8 +10261,7 @@ rs6000_emit_set_long_const (rtx dest, HOST_WIDE_INT c) > temp = !can_create_pseudo_p () ? dest : gen_reg_rtx (DImode); > > gcc_assert (ud2 & 0x8000); > - emit_move_insn (copy_rtx (temp), > - GEN_INT (((ud2 << 16) ^ 0x80000000) - 0x80000000)); > + emit_move_insn (copy_rtx (temp), GEN_INT (sext_hwi (ud2 << 16, 32))); > if (ud1 != 0) > emit_move_insn (copy_rtx (temp), > gen_rtx_IOR (DImode, copy_rtx (temp), > @@ -10273,7 +10272,7 @@ rs6000_emit_set_long_const (rtx dest, HOST_WIDE_INT c) > { > temp = !can_create_pseudo_p () ? dest : gen_reg_rtx (DImode); > HOST_WIDE_INT num = (ud2 << 16) | ud1; > - rs6000_emit_set_long_const (temp, (num ^ 0x80000000) - 0x80000000); > + rs6000_emit_set_long_const (temp, sext_hwi (num, 32)); > rtx one = gen_rtx_AND (DImode, temp, GEN_INT (0xffffffff)); > rtx two = gen_rtx_ASHIFT (DImode, temp, GEN_INT (32)); > emit_move_insn (dest, gen_rtx_IOR (DImode, one, two)); > @@ -10283,8 +10282,7 @@ rs6000_emit_set_long_const (rtx dest, HOST_WIDE_INT c) > { > temp = !can_create_pseudo_p () ? dest : gen_reg_rtx (DImode); > > - emit_move_insn (copy_rtx (temp), > - GEN_INT (((ud3 << 16) ^ 0x80000000) - 0x80000000)); > + emit_move_insn (copy_rtx (temp), GEN_INT (sext_hwi (ud3 << 16, 32))); > if (ud2 != 0) > emit_move_insn (copy_rtx (temp), > gen_rtx_IOR (DImode, copy_rtx (temp), > @@ -10336,8 +10334,7 @@ rs6000_emit_set_long_const (rtx dest, HOST_WIDE_INT c) > { > temp = !can_create_pseudo_p () ? dest : gen_reg_rtx (DImode); > > - emit_move_insn (copy_rtx (temp), > - GEN_INT (((ud4 << 16) ^ 0x80000000) - 0x80000000)); > + emit_move_insn (copy_rtx (temp), GEN_INT (sext_hwi (ud4 << 16, 32))); > if (ud3 != 0) > emit_move_insn (copy_rtx (temp), > gen_rtx_IOR (DImode, copy_rtx (temp), > @@ -14167,8 +14164,7 @@ print_operand (FILE *file, rtx x, int code) > /* If constant, low-order 16 bits of constant, signed. Otherwise, write > normally. */ > if (INT_P (x)) > - fprintf (file, HOST_WIDE_INT_PRINT_DEC, > - ((INTVAL (x) & 0xffff) ^ 0x8000) - 0x8000); > + fprintf (file, HOST_WIDE_INT_PRINT_DEC, sext_hwi (INTVAL (x), 16)); > else > print_operand (file, x, 0); > return; > diff --git a/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.md b/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.md > index 3bae303086b..4bd1dfd3da9 100644 > --- a/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.md > +++ b/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.md > @@ -1787,7 +1787,7 @@ (define_expand "add<mode>3" > } > > HOST_WIDE_INT val = INTVAL (operands[2]); > - HOST_WIDE_INT low = ((val & 0xffff) ^ 0x8000) - 0x8000; > + HOST_WIDE_INT low = sext_hwi (val, 16); > HOST_WIDE_INT rest = trunc_int_for_mode (val - low, <MODE>mode); > > if (<MODE>mode == DImode && !satisfies_constraint_L (GEN_INT (rest))) > @@ -1930,7 +1930,7 @@ (define_split > (set (match_dup 0) (plus:GPR (match_dup 0) (match_dup 4)))] > { > HOST_WIDE_INT val = INTVAL (operands[2]); > - HOST_WIDE_INT low = ((val & 0xffff) ^ 0x8000) - 0x8000; > + HOST_WIDE_INT low = sext_hwi (val, 16); > HOST_WIDE_INT rest = trunc_int_for_mode (val - low, <MODE>mode); > > operands[4] = GEN_INT (low); > @@ -8213,7 +8213,7 @@ (define_split > operands[2] = operand_subword (operands[0], endian, 0, <MODE>mode); > operands[3] = operand_subword (operands[0], 1 - endian, 0, <MODE>mode); > operands[4] = GEN_INT (value >> 32); > - operands[1] = GEN_INT (((value & 0xffffffff) ^ 0x80000000) - 0x80000000); > + operands[1] = GEN_INT (sext_hwi (value, 32)); > }) > > (define_split > @@ -9577,7 +9577,7 @@ (define_split > operands[3] = operand_subword_force (operands[0], WORDS_BIG_ENDIAN != 0, > DImode); > operands[4] = GEN_INT (value >> 32); > - operands[1] = GEN_INT (((value & 0xffffffff) ^ 0x80000000) - 0x80000000); > + operands[1] = GEN_INT (sext_hwi (value, 32)); > }) > > (define_split > @@ -12425,7 +12425,7 @@ (define_peephole2 > SImode, > operands[1], operands[2]); > HOST_WIDE_INT c = INTVAL (cnst); > - HOST_WIDE_INT sextc = ((c & 0xffff) ^ 0x8000) - 0x8000; > + HOST_WIDE_INT sextc = sext_hwi (c, 16); > HOST_WIDE_INT xorv = c ^ sextc; > > operands[9] = GEN_INT (xorv); ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 2/3]rs6000: NFC use sext_hwi to replace ((v&0xf..f)^0x80..0) - 0x80..0 2022-12-01 5:17 ` Kewen.Lin @ 2022-12-01 5:30 ` Kewen.Lin 2022-12-01 6:32 ` Jiufu Guo 2022-12-01 5:35 ` Jiufu Guo 1 sibling, 1 reply; 16+ messages in thread From: Kewen.Lin @ 2022-12-01 5:30 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Jiufu Guo; +Cc: segher, dje.gcc, linkw, gcc-patches on 2022/12/1 13:17, Kewen.Lin via Gcc-patches wrote: > Hi Jeff, > > on 2022/12/1 09:36, Jiufu Guo wrote: >> Hi, >> >> This patch just uses sext_hwi to replace the expression like: >> ((value & 0xf..f) ^ 0x80..0) - 0x80..0 for rs6000.cc and rs6000.md. >> >> Bootstrap & regtest pass on ppc64{,le}. >> Is this ok for trunk? > > You didn't say it clearly but I guessed you have grepped in the whole > config/rs6000 directory, right? I noticed there are still two places > using this kind of expression in function constant_generates_xxspltiw, > but I assumed it's intentional as their types are not HOST_WIDE_INT. > > gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.cc: short sign_h_word = ((h_word & 0xffff) ^ 0x8000) - 0x8000; > gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.cc: int sign_word = ((word & 0xffffffff) ^ 0x80000000) - 0x80000000; > oh, one place in gcc/config/rs6000/predicates.md got missed. ./predicates.md-756-{ ./predicates.md-757- HOST_WIDE_INT val; ... ./predicates.md-762- val = const_vector_elt_as_int (op, elt); ./predicates.md:763: val = ((val & 0xff) ^ 0x80) - 0x80; ./predicates.md-764- return EASY_VECTOR_15_ADD_SELF (val); ./predicates.md-765-}) Do you mind to have a further check? Thanks! Kewen ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 2/3]rs6000: NFC use sext_hwi to replace ((v&0xf..f)^0x80..0) - 0x80..0 2022-12-01 5:30 ` Kewen.Lin @ 2022-12-01 6:32 ` Jiufu Guo 0 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread From: Jiufu Guo @ 2022-12-01 6:32 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Kewen.Lin; +Cc: segher, dje.gcc, linkw, gcc-patches [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1594 bytes --] Hi Kewen, 在 12/1/22 1:30 PM, Kewen.Lin 写道: > on 2022/12/1 13:17, Kewen.Lin via Gcc-patches wrote: >> Hi Jeff, >> >> on 2022/12/1 09:36, Jiufu Guo wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> This patch just uses sext_hwi to replace the expression like: >>> ((value & 0xf..f) ^ 0x80..0) - 0x80..0 for rs6000.cc and rs6000.md. >>> >>> Bootstrap & regtest pass on ppc64{,le}. >>> Is this ok for trunk? >> >> You didn't say it clearly but I guessed you have grepped in the whole >> config/rs6000 directory, right? I noticed there are still two places >> using this kind of expression in function constant_generates_xxspltiw, >> but I assumed it's intentional as their types are not HOST_WIDE_INT. >> >> gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.cc: short sign_h_word = ((h_word & 0xffff) ^ 0x8000) - 0x8000; >> gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.cc: int sign_word = ((word & 0xffffffff) ^ 0x80000000) - 0x80000000; >> > > oh, one place in gcc/config/rs6000/predicates.md got missed. > > ./predicates.md-756-{ > ./predicates.md-757- HOST_WIDE_INT val; > ... > ./predicates.md-762- val = const_vector_elt_as_int (op, elt); > ./predicates.md:763: val = ((val & 0xff) ^ 0x80) - 0x80; > ./predicates.md-764- return EASY_VECTOR_15_ADD_SELF (val); > ./predicates.md-765-}) > > Do you mind to have a further check? Good catch, thanks! I will update the patch to cover this one. Bootstrap and testing. I would be better to check all files under rs6000/. I just rechecked with grep -r "^.*0x8.*-.*0x8" for rs6000. No other place is missed. BR, Jeff (Jiufu) Updated patch as attached(add predicates.md). > > Thanks! > > Kewen [-- Attachment #2: 0002-NFC-use-sext_hwi-to-replace-v-0xf.f-0x80.0-0x80.0.patch --] [-- Type: text/plain, Size: 8856 bytes --] From 0059e2175cac5353890965ba782ff58743d2f486 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Jiufu Guo <guojiufu@linux.ibm.com> Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2022 13:13:37 +0800 Subject: [PATCH 2/2]rs6000: use sext_hwi to replace ((v&0xf..f)^0x80..0) - 0x80..0 This patch just uses sext_hwi to replace the expression like: ((value & 0xf..f) ^ 0x80..0) - 0x80..0 for rs6000.cc, rs6000.md and predicates.md (all occurance under rs6000/). gcc/ChangeLog: * config/rs6000/predicates.md: Use sext_hwi. * config/rs6000/rs6000.cc (num_insns_constant_gpr): Use sext_hwi. (darwin_rs6000_legitimate_lo_sum_const_p): Likewise. (mem_operand_gpr): Likewise. (mem_operand_ds_form): Likewise. (rs6000_legitimize_address): Likewise. (rs6000_emit_set_const): Likewise. (rs6000_emit_set_long_const): Likewise. (print_operand): Likewise. * config/rs6000/rs6000.md: Likewise. --- gcc/config/rs6000/predicates.md | 2 +- gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.cc | 30 +++++++++++++----------------- gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.md | 10 +++++----- 3 files changed, 19 insertions(+), 23 deletions(-) diff --git a/gcc/config/rs6000/predicates.md b/gcc/config/rs6000/predicates.md index b1fcc69bb60..a1764018545 100644 --- a/gcc/config/rs6000/predicates.md +++ b/gcc/config/rs6000/predicates.md @@ -760,7 +760,7 @@ (define_predicate "easy_vector_constant_add_self" return 0; elt = BYTES_BIG_ENDIAN ? GET_MODE_NUNITS (mode) - 1 : 0; val = const_vector_elt_as_int (op, elt); - val = ((val & 0xff) ^ 0x80) - 0x80; + val = sext_hwi (val, 8); return EASY_VECTOR_15_ADD_SELF (val); }) diff --git a/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.cc b/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.cc index 5efe9b22d8b..718072cc9a1 100644 --- a/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.cc +++ b/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.cc @@ -6021,7 +6021,7 @@ num_insns_constant_gpr (HOST_WIDE_INT value) else if (TARGET_POWERPC64) { - HOST_WIDE_INT low = ((value & 0xffffffff) ^ 0x80000000) - 0x80000000; + HOST_WIDE_INT low = sext_hwi (value, 32); HOST_WIDE_INT high = value >> 31; if (high == 0 || high == -1) @@ -8456,7 +8456,7 @@ darwin_rs6000_legitimate_lo_sum_const_p (rtx x, machine_mode mode) } /* We only care if the access(es) would cause a change to the high part. */ - offset = ((offset & 0xffff) ^ 0x8000) - 0x8000; + offset = sext_hwi (offset, 16); return SIGNED_16BIT_OFFSET_EXTRA_P (offset, extra); } @@ -8522,7 +8522,7 @@ mem_operand_gpr (rtx op, machine_mode mode) if (GET_CODE (addr) == LO_SUM) /* For lo_sum addresses, we must allow any offset except one that causes a wrap, so test only the low 16 bits. */ - offset = ((offset & 0xffff) ^ 0x8000) - 0x8000; + offset = sext_hwi (offset, 16); return SIGNED_16BIT_OFFSET_EXTRA_P (offset, extra); } @@ -8562,7 +8562,7 @@ mem_operand_ds_form (rtx op, machine_mode mode) if (GET_CODE (addr) == LO_SUM) /* For lo_sum addresses, we must allow any offset except one that causes a wrap, so test only the low 16 bits. */ - offset = ((offset & 0xffff) ^ 0x8000) - 0x8000; + offset = sext_hwi (offset, 16); return SIGNED_16BIT_OFFSET_EXTRA_P (offset, extra); } @@ -9136,7 +9136,7 @@ rs6000_legitimize_address (rtx x, rtx oldx ATTRIBUTE_UNUSED, { HOST_WIDE_INT high_int, low_int; rtx sum; - low_int = ((INTVAL (XEXP (x, 1)) & 0xffff) ^ 0x8000) - 0x8000; + low_int = sext_hwi (INTVAL (XEXP (x, 1)), 16); if (low_int >= 0x8000 - extra) low_int = 0; high_int = INTVAL (XEXP (x, 1)) - low_int; @@ -10203,7 +10203,7 @@ rs6000_emit_set_const (rtx dest, rtx source) lo = operand_subword_force (dest, WORDS_BIG_ENDIAN != 0, DImode); emit_move_insn (hi, GEN_INT (c >> 32)); - c = ((c & 0xffffffff) ^ 0x80000000) - 0x80000000; + c = sext_hwi (c, 32); emit_move_insn (lo, GEN_INT (c)); } else @@ -10242,7 +10242,7 @@ rs6000_emit_set_long_const (rtx dest, HOST_WIDE_INT c) if ((ud4 == 0xffff && ud3 == 0xffff && ud2 == 0xffff && (ud1 & 0x8000)) || (ud4 == 0 && ud3 == 0 && ud2 == 0 && ! (ud1 & 0x8000))) - emit_move_insn (dest, GEN_INT ((ud1 ^ 0x8000) - 0x8000)); + emit_move_insn (dest, GEN_INT (sext_hwi (ud1, 16))); else if ((ud4 == 0xffff && ud3 == 0xffff && (ud2 & 0x8000)) || (ud4 == 0 && ud3 == 0 && ! (ud2 & 0x8000))) @@ -10250,7 +10250,7 @@ rs6000_emit_set_long_const (rtx dest, HOST_WIDE_INT c) temp = !can_create_pseudo_p () ? dest : gen_reg_rtx (DImode); emit_move_insn (ud1 != 0 ? copy_rtx (temp) : dest, - GEN_INT (((ud2 << 16) ^ 0x80000000) - 0x80000000)); + GEN_INT (sext_hwi (ud2 << 16, 32))); if (ud1 != 0) emit_move_insn (dest, gen_rtx_IOR (DImode, copy_rtx (temp), @@ -10261,8 +10261,7 @@ rs6000_emit_set_long_const (rtx dest, HOST_WIDE_INT c) temp = !can_create_pseudo_p () ? dest : gen_reg_rtx (DImode); gcc_assert (ud2 & 0x8000); - emit_move_insn (copy_rtx (temp), - GEN_INT (((ud2 << 16) ^ 0x80000000) - 0x80000000)); + emit_move_insn (copy_rtx (temp), GEN_INT (sext_hwi (ud2 << 16, 32))); if (ud1 != 0) emit_move_insn (copy_rtx (temp), gen_rtx_IOR (DImode, copy_rtx (temp), @@ -10273,7 +10272,7 @@ rs6000_emit_set_long_const (rtx dest, HOST_WIDE_INT c) { temp = !can_create_pseudo_p () ? dest : gen_reg_rtx (DImode); HOST_WIDE_INT num = (ud2 << 16) | ud1; - rs6000_emit_set_long_const (temp, (num ^ 0x80000000) - 0x80000000); + rs6000_emit_set_long_const (temp, sext_hwi (num, 32)); rtx one = gen_rtx_AND (DImode, temp, GEN_INT (0xffffffff)); rtx two = gen_rtx_ASHIFT (DImode, temp, GEN_INT (32)); emit_move_insn (dest, gen_rtx_IOR (DImode, one, two)); @@ -10283,8 +10282,7 @@ rs6000_emit_set_long_const (rtx dest, HOST_WIDE_INT c) { temp = !can_create_pseudo_p () ? dest : gen_reg_rtx (DImode); - emit_move_insn (copy_rtx (temp), - GEN_INT (((ud3 << 16) ^ 0x80000000) - 0x80000000)); + emit_move_insn (copy_rtx (temp), GEN_INT (sext_hwi (ud3 << 16, 32))); if (ud2 != 0) emit_move_insn (copy_rtx (temp), gen_rtx_IOR (DImode, copy_rtx (temp), @@ -10336,8 +10334,7 @@ rs6000_emit_set_long_const (rtx dest, HOST_WIDE_INT c) { temp = !can_create_pseudo_p () ? dest : gen_reg_rtx (DImode); - emit_move_insn (copy_rtx (temp), - GEN_INT (((ud4 << 16) ^ 0x80000000) - 0x80000000)); + emit_move_insn (copy_rtx (temp), GEN_INT (sext_hwi (ud4 << 16, 32))); if (ud3 != 0) emit_move_insn (copy_rtx (temp), gen_rtx_IOR (DImode, copy_rtx (temp), @@ -14167,8 +14164,7 @@ print_operand (FILE *file, rtx x, int code) /* If constant, low-order 16 bits of constant, signed. Otherwise, write normally. */ if (INT_P (x)) - fprintf (file, HOST_WIDE_INT_PRINT_DEC, - ((INTVAL (x) & 0xffff) ^ 0x8000) - 0x8000); + fprintf (file, HOST_WIDE_INT_PRINT_DEC, sext_hwi (INTVAL (x), 16)); else print_operand (file, x, 0); return; diff --git a/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.md b/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.md index 3bae303086b..4bd1dfd3da9 100644 --- a/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.md +++ b/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.md @@ -1787,7 +1787,7 @@ (define_expand "add<mode>3" } HOST_WIDE_INT val = INTVAL (operands[2]); - HOST_WIDE_INT low = ((val & 0xffff) ^ 0x8000) - 0x8000; + HOST_WIDE_INT low = sext_hwi (val, 16); HOST_WIDE_INT rest = trunc_int_for_mode (val - low, <MODE>mode); if (<MODE>mode == DImode && !satisfies_constraint_L (GEN_INT (rest))) @@ -1930,7 +1930,7 @@ (define_split (set (match_dup 0) (plus:GPR (match_dup 0) (match_dup 4)))] { HOST_WIDE_INT val = INTVAL (operands[2]); - HOST_WIDE_INT low = ((val & 0xffff) ^ 0x8000) - 0x8000; + HOST_WIDE_INT low = sext_hwi (val, 16); HOST_WIDE_INT rest = trunc_int_for_mode (val - low, <MODE>mode); operands[4] = GEN_INT (low); @@ -8213,7 +8213,7 @@ (define_split operands[2] = operand_subword (operands[0], endian, 0, <MODE>mode); operands[3] = operand_subword (operands[0], 1 - endian, 0, <MODE>mode); operands[4] = GEN_INT (value >> 32); - operands[1] = GEN_INT (((value & 0xffffffff) ^ 0x80000000) - 0x80000000); + operands[1] = GEN_INT (sext_hwi (value, 32)); }) (define_split @@ -9577,7 +9577,7 @@ (define_split operands[3] = operand_subword_force (operands[0], WORDS_BIG_ENDIAN != 0, DImode); operands[4] = GEN_INT (value >> 32); - operands[1] = GEN_INT (((value & 0xffffffff) ^ 0x80000000) - 0x80000000); + operands[1] = GEN_INT (sext_hwi (value, 32)); }) (define_split @@ -12425,7 +12425,7 @@ (define_peephole2 SImode, operands[1], operands[2]); HOST_WIDE_INT c = INTVAL (cnst); - HOST_WIDE_INT sextc = ((c & 0xffff) ^ 0x8000) - 0x8000; + HOST_WIDE_INT sextc = sext_hwi (c, 16); HOST_WIDE_INT xorv = c ^ sextc; operands[9] = GEN_INT (xorv); -- 2.17.1 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 2/3]rs6000: NFC use sext_hwi to replace ((v&0xf..f)^0x80..0) - 0x80..0 2022-12-01 5:17 ` Kewen.Lin 2022-12-01 5:30 ` Kewen.Lin @ 2022-12-01 5:35 ` Jiufu Guo 2022-12-01 6:11 ` Kewen.Lin 1 sibling, 1 reply; 16+ messages in thread From: Jiufu Guo @ 2022-12-01 5:35 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Kewen.Lin; +Cc: segher, dje.gcc, linkw, gcc-patches Hi Kewen, Thanks for your quick and insight review! 在 12/1/22 1:17 PM, Kewen.Lin 写道: > Hi Jeff, > > on 2022/12/1 09:36, Jiufu Guo wrote: >> Hi, >> >> This patch just uses sext_hwi to replace the expression like: >> ((value & 0xf..f) ^ 0x80..0) - 0x80..0 for rs6000.cc and rs6000.md. >> >> Bootstrap & regtest pass on ppc64{,le}. >> Is this ok for trunk? > > You didn't say it clearly but I guessed you have grepped in the whole > config/rs6000 directory, right? I noticed there are still two places > using this kind of expression in function constant_generates_xxspltiw, > but I assumed it's intentional as their types are not HOST_WIDE_INT. > > gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.cc: short sign_h_word = ((h_word & 0xffff) ^ 0x8000) - 0x8000; > gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.cc: int sign_word = ((word & 0xffffffff) ^ 0x80000000) - 0x80000000; > > If so, could you state it clearly in commit log like "with type > signed/unsigned HOST_WIDE_INT" or similar? > Good question! And as you said sext_hwi is more for "signed/unsigned HOST_WIDE_INT". For these two places, it seems sext_hwi is not needed actually! And I did see why these expressions are used, may be just an assignment is ok. So, this patch does not cover these two places. BR, Jeff (Jiufu) > This patch is OK once the above question gets confirmed, thanks! > > BR, > Kewen > >> >> BR, >> Jeff (Jiufu) >> >> gcc/ChangeLog: >> >> * config/rs6000/rs6000.cc (num_insns_constant_gpr): Use sext_hwi. >> (darwin_rs6000_legitimate_lo_sum_const_p): Likewise. >> (mem_operand_gpr): Likewise. >> (mem_operand_ds_form): Likewise. >> (rs6000_legitimize_address): Likewise. >> (rs6000_emit_set_const): Likewise. >> (rs6000_emit_set_long_const): Likewise. >> (print_operand): Likewise. >> * config/rs6000/rs6000.md: Likewise. >> >> --- >> gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.cc | 30 +++++++++++++----------------- >> gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.md | 10 +++++----- >> 2 files changed, 18 insertions(+), 22 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.cc b/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.cc >> index 5efe9b22d8b..718072cc9a1 100644 >> --- a/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.cc >> +++ b/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.cc >> @@ -6021,7 +6021,7 @@ num_insns_constant_gpr (HOST_WIDE_INT value) >> >> else if (TARGET_POWERPC64) >> { >> - HOST_WIDE_INT low = ((value & 0xffffffff) ^ 0x80000000) - 0x80000000; >> + HOST_WIDE_INT low = sext_hwi (value, 32); >> HOST_WIDE_INT high = value >> 31; >> >> if (high == 0 || high == -1) >> @@ -8456,7 +8456,7 @@ darwin_rs6000_legitimate_lo_sum_const_p (rtx x, machine_mode mode) >> } >> >> /* We only care if the access(es) would cause a change to the high part. */ >> - offset = ((offset & 0xffff) ^ 0x8000) - 0x8000; >> + offset = sext_hwi (offset, 16); >> return SIGNED_16BIT_OFFSET_EXTRA_P (offset, extra); >> } >> >> @@ -8522,7 +8522,7 @@ mem_operand_gpr (rtx op, machine_mode mode) >> if (GET_CODE (addr) == LO_SUM) >> /* For lo_sum addresses, we must allow any offset except one that >> causes a wrap, so test only the low 16 bits. */ >> - offset = ((offset & 0xffff) ^ 0x8000) - 0x8000; >> + offset = sext_hwi (offset, 16); >> >> return SIGNED_16BIT_OFFSET_EXTRA_P (offset, extra); >> } >> @@ -8562,7 +8562,7 @@ mem_operand_ds_form (rtx op, machine_mode mode) >> if (GET_CODE (addr) == LO_SUM) >> /* For lo_sum addresses, we must allow any offset except one that >> causes a wrap, so test only the low 16 bits. */ >> - offset = ((offset & 0xffff) ^ 0x8000) - 0x8000; >> + offset = sext_hwi (offset, 16); >> >> return SIGNED_16BIT_OFFSET_EXTRA_P (offset, extra); >> } >> @@ -9136,7 +9136,7 @@ rs6000_legitimize_address (rtx x, rtx oldx ATTRIBUTE_UNUSED, >> { >> HOST_WIDE_INT high_int, low_int; >> rtx sum; >> - low_int = ((INTVAL (XEXP (x, 1)) & 0xffff) ^ 0x8000) - 0x8000; >> + low_int = sext_hwi (INTVAL (XEXP (x, 1)), 16); >> if (low_int >= 0x8000 - extra) >> low_int = 0; >> high_int = INTVAL (XEXP (x, 1)) - low_int; >> @@ -10203,7 +10203,7 @@ rs6000_emit_set_const (rtx dest, rtx source) >> lo = operand_subword_force (dest, WORDS_BIG_ENDIAN != 0, >> DImode); >> emit_move_insn (hi, GEN_INT (c >> 32)); >> - c = ((c & 0xffffffff) ^ 0x80000000) - 0x80000000; >> + c = sext_hwi (c, 32); >> emit_move_insn (lo, GEN_INT (c)); >> } >> else >> @@ -10242,7 +10242,7 @@ rs6000_emit_set_long_const (rtx dest, HOST_WIDE_INT c) >> >> if ((ud4 == 0xffff && ud3 == 0xffff && ud2 == 0xffff && (ud1 & 0x8000)) >> || (ud4 == 0 && ud3 == 0 && ud2 == 0 && ! (ud1 & 0x8000))) >> - emit_move_insn (dest, GEN_INT ((ud1 ^ 0x8000) - 0x8000)); >> + emit_move_insn (dest, GEN_INT (sext_hwi (ud1, 16))); >> >> else if ((ud4 == 0xffff && ud3 == 0xffff && (ud2 & 0x8000)) >> || (ud4 == 0 && ud3 == 0 && ! (ud2 & 0x8000))) >> @@ -10250,7 +10250,7 @@ rs6000_emit_set_long_const (rtx dest, HOST_WIDE_INT c) >> temp = !can_create_pseudo_p () ? dest : gen_reg_rtx (DImode); >> >> emit_move_insn (ud1 != 0 ? copy_rtx (temp) : dest, >> - GEN_INT (((ud2 << 16) ^ 0x80000000) - 0x80000000)); >> + GEN_INT (sext_hwi (ud2 << 16, 32))); >> if (ud1 != 0) >> emit_move_insn (dest, >> gen_rtx_IOR (DImode, copy_rtx (temp), >> @@ -10261,8 +10261,7 @@ rs6000_emit_set_long_const (rtx dest, HOST_WIDE_INT c) >> temp = !can_create_pseudo_p () ? dest : gen_reg_rtx (DImode); >> >> gcc_assert (ud2 & 0x8000); >> - emit_move_insn (copy_rtx (temp), >> - GEN_INT (((ud2 << 16) ^ 0x80000000) - 0x80000000)); >> + emit_move_insn (copy_rtx (temp), GEN_INT (sext_hwi (ud2 << 16, 32))); >> if (ud1 != 0) >> emit_move_insn (copy_rtx (temp), >> gen_rtx_IOR (DImode, copy_rtx (temp), >> @@ -10273,7 +10272,7 @@ rs6000_emit_set_long_const (rtx dest, HOST_WIDE_INT c) >> { >> temp = !can_create_pseudo_p () ? dest : gen_reg_rtx (DImode); >> HOST_WIDE_INT num = (ud2 << 16) | ud1; >> - rs6000_emit_set_long_const (temp, (num ^ 0x80000000) - 0x80000000); >> + rs6000_emit_set_long_const (temp, sext_hwi (num, 32)); >> rtx one = gen_rtx_AND (DImode, temp, GEN_INT (0xffffffff)); >> rtx two = gen_rtx_ASHIFT (DImode, temp, GEN_INT (32)); >> emit_move_insn (dest, gen_rtx_IOR (DImode, one, two)); >> @@ -10283,8 +10282,7 @@ rs6000_emit_set_long_const (rtx dest, HOST_WIDE_INT c) >> { >> temp = !can_create_pseudo_p () ? dest : gen_reg_rtx (DImode); >> >> - emit_move_insn (copy_rtx (temp), >> - GEN_INT (((ud3 << 16) ^ 0x80000000) - 0x80000000)); >> + emit_move_insn (copy_rtx (temp), GEN_INT (sext_hwi (ud3 << 16, 32))); >> if (ud2 != 0) >> emit_move_insn (copy_rtx (temp), >> gen_rtx_IOR (DImode, copy_rtx (temp), >> @@ -10336,8 +10334,7 @@ rs6000_emit_set_long_const (rtx dest, HOST_WIDE_INT c) >> { >> temp = !can_create_pseudo_p () ? dest : gen_reg_rtx (DImode); >> >> - emit_move_insn (copy_rtx (temp), >> - GEN_INT (((ud4 << 16) ^ 0x80000000) - 0x80000000)); >> + emit_move_insn (copy_rtx (temp), GEN_INT (sext_hwi (ud4 << 16, 32))); >> if (ud3 != 0) >> emit_move_insn (copy_rtx (temp), >> gen_rtx_IOR (DImode, copy_rtx (temp), >> @@ -14167,8 +14164,7 @@ print_operand (FILE *file, rtx x, int code) >> /* If constant, low-order 16 bits of constant, signed. Otherwise, write >> normally. */ >> if (INT_P (x)) >> - fprintf (file, HOST_WIDE_INT_PRINT_DEC, >> - ((INTVAL (x) & 0xffff) ^ 0x8000) - 0x8000); >> + fprintf (file, HOST_WIDE_INT_PRINT_DEC, sext_hwi (INTVAL (x), 16)); >> else >> print_operand (file, x, 0); >> return; >> diff --git a/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.md b/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.md >> index 3bae303086b..4bd1dfd3da9 100644 >> --- a/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.md >> +++ b/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.md >> @@ -1787,7 +1787,7 @@ (define_expand "add<mode>3" >> } >> >> HOST_WIDE_INT val = INTVAL (operands[2]); >> - HOST_WIDE_INT low = ((val & 0xffff) ^ 0x8000) - 0x8000; >> + HOST_WIDE_INT low = sext_hwi (val, 16); >> HOST_WIDE_INT rest = trunc_int_for_mode (val - low, <MODE>mode); >> >> if (<MODE>mode == DImode && !satisfies_constraint_L (GEN_INT (rest))) >> @@ -1930,7 +1930,7 @@ (define_split >> (set (match_dup 0) (plus:GPR (match_dup 0) (match_dup 4)))] >> { >> HOST_WIDE_INT val = INTVAL (operands[2]); >> - HOST_WIDE_INT low = ((val & 0xffff) ^ 0x8000) - 0x8000; >> + HOST_WIDE_INT low = sext_hwi (val, 16); >> HOST_WIDE_INT rest = trunc_int_for_mode (val - low, <MODE>mode); >> >> operands[4] = GEN_INT (low); >> @@ -8213,7 +8213,7 @@ (define_split >> operands[2] = operand_subword (operands[0], endian, 0, <MODE>mode); >> operands[3] = operand_subword (operands[0], 1 - endian, 0, <MODE>mode); >> operands[4] = GEN_INT (value >> 32); >> - operands[1] = GEN_INT (((value & 0xffffffff) ^ 0x80000000) - 0x80000000); >> + operands[1] = GEN_INT (sext_hwi (value, 32)); >> }) >> >> (define_split >> @@ -9577,7 +9577,7 @@ (define_split >> operands[3] = operand_subword_force (operands[0], WORDS_BIG_ENDIAN != 0, >> DImode); >> operands[4] = GEN_INT (value >> 32); >> - operands[1] = GEN_INT (((value & 0xffffffff) ^ 0x80000000) - 0x80000000); >> + operands[1] = GEN_INT (sext_hwi (value, 32)); >> }) >> >> (define_split >> @@ -12425,7 +12425,7 @@ (define_peephole2 >> SImode, >> operands[1], operands[2]); >> HOST_WIDE_INT c = INTVAL (cnst); >> - HOST_WIDE_INT sextc = ((c & 0xffff) ^ 0x8000) - 0x8000; >> + HOST_WIDE_INT sextc = sext_hwi (c, 16); >> HOST_WIDE_INT xorv = c ^ sextc; >> >> operands[9] = GEN_INT (xorv); ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 2/3]rs6000: NFC use sext_hwi to replace ((v&0xf..f)^0x80..0) - 0x80..0 2022-12-01 5:35 ` Jiufu Guo @ 2022-12-01 6:11 ` Kewen.Lin 2022-12-01 7:10 ` Jiufu Guo 0 siblings, 1 reply; 16+ messages in thread From: Kewen.Lin @ 2022-12-01 6:11 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Jiufu Guo; +Cc: segher, dje.gcc, linkw, gcc-patches on 2022/12/1 13:35, Jiufu Guo wrote: > Hi Kewen, > > Thanks for your quick and insight review! > > 在 12/1/22 1:17 PM, Kewen.Lin 写道: >> Hi Jeff, >> >> on 2022/12/1 09:36, Jiufu Guo wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> This patch just uses sext_hwi to replace the expression like: >>> ((value & 0xf..f) ^ 0x80..0) - 0x80..0 for rs6000.cc and rs6000.md. >>> >>> Bootstrap & regtest pass on ppc64{,le}. >>> Is this ok for trunk? >> >> You didn't say it clearly but I guessed you have grepped in the whole >> config/rs6000 directory, right? I noticed there are still two places >> using this kind of expression in function constant_generates_xxspltiw, >> but I assumed it's intentional as their types are not HOST_WIDE_INT. >> >> gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.cc: short sign_h_word = ((h_word & 0xffff) ^ 0x8000) - 0x8000; >> gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.cc: int sign_word = ((word & 0xffffffff) ^ 0x80000000) - 0x80000000; >> >> If so, could you state it clearly in commit log like "with type >> signed/unsigned HOST_WIDE_INT" or similar? >> > Good question! > > And as you said sext_hwi is more for "signed/unsigned HOST_WIDE_INT". > For these two places, it seems sext_hwi is not needed actually! > And I did see why these expressions are used, may be just an assignment > is ok. ah, I see. I agree using the assignment is quite enough. Could you please also simplify them together? Since they are with the form "((value & 0xf..f) ^ 0x80..0) - 0x80..0" too, and can be refactored in a better way. Thanks! BR, Kewen ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 2/3]rs6000: NFC use sext_hwi to replace ((v&0xf..f)^0x80..0) - 0x80..0 2022-12-01 6:11 ` Kewen.Lin @ 2022-12-01 7:10 ` Jiufu Guo 2022-12-01 12:16 ` guojiufu 0 siblings, 1 reply; 16+ messages in thread From: Jiufu Guo @ 2022-12-01 7:10 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Kewen.Lin; +Cc: segher, dje.gcc, linkw, gcc-patches [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1822 bytes --] Hi Kewen, 在 12/1/22 2:11 PM, Kewen.Lin 写道: > on 2022/12/1 13:35, Jiufu Guo wrote: >> Hi Kewen, >> >> Thanks for your quick and insight review! >> >> 在 12/1/22 1:17 PM, Kewen.Lin 写道: >>> Hi Jeff, >>> >>> on 2022/12/1 09:36, Jiufu Guo wrote: >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> This patch just uses sext_hwi to replace the expression like: >>>> ((value & 0xf..f) ^ 0x80..0) - 0x80..0 for rs6000.cc and rs6000.md. >>>> >>>> Bootstrap & regtest pass on ppc64{,le}. >>>> Is this ok for trunk? >>> >>> You didn't say it clearly but I guessed you have grepped in the whole >>> config/rs6000 directory, right? I noticed there are still two places >>> using this kind of expression in function constant_generates_xxspltiw, >>> but I assumed it's intentional as their types are not HOST_WIDE_INT. >>> >>> gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.cc: short sign_h_word = ((h_word & 0xffff) ^ 0x8000) - 0x8000; >>> gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.cc: int sign_word = ((word & 0xffffffff) ^ 0x80000000) - 0x80000000; >>> >>> If so, could you state it clearly in commit log like "with type >>> signed/unsigned HOST_WIDE_INT" or similar? >>> >> Good question! >> >> And as you said sext_hwi is more for "signed/unsigned HOST_WIDE_INT". >> For these two places, it seems sext_hwi is not needed actually! >> And I did see why these expressions are used, may be just an assignment >> is ok. > > ah, I see. I agree using the assignment is quite enough. Could you > please also simplify them together? Since they are with the form > "((value & 0xf..f) ^ 0x80..0) - 0x80..0" too, and can be refactored > in a better way. Thanks! Sure, I believe just "short sign_h_word = vsx_const->half_words[0];" should be correct :-), and included in the updated patch. Updated patch is attached, bootstrap®test is on going. BR, Jeff (Jiufu) > > BR, > Kewen > [-- Attachment #2: 0002-NFC-use-sext_hwi-to-replace-v-0xf.f-0x80.0-0x80.0.patch --] [-- Type: text/plain, Size: 9561 bytes --] From 8aa8e1234b6ec34473434951a3a6177253aac770 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Jiufu Guo <guojiufu@linux.ibm.com> Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2022 13:13:37 +0800 Subject: [PATCH 2/2]rs6000: update ((v&0xf..f)^0x80..0) - 0x80..0 with code: like sext_hwi This patch just replaces the expression like: ((value & 0xf..f) ^ 0x80..0) - 0x80..0 to better code(e.g. sext_hwi) for rs6000.cc, rs6000.md and predicates.md (files under rs6000/). gcc/ChangeLog: * config/rs6000/predicates.md: Use sext_hwi. * config/rs6000/rs6000.cc (num_insns_constant_gpr): Likewise. (darwin_rs6000_legitimate_lo_sum_const_p): Likewise. (mem_operand_gpr): Likewise. (mem_operand_ds_form): Likewise. (rs6000_legitimize_address): Likewise. (rs6000_emit_set_const): Likewise. (rs6000_emit_set_long_const): Likewise. (print_operand): Likewise. (constant_generates_xxspltiw): Remove unnecessary expressions. * config/rs6000/rs6000.md: Use sext_hwi. --- gcc/config/rs6000/predicates.md | 2 +- gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.cc | 36 ++++++++++++++------------------- gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.md | 10 ++++----- 3 files changed, 21 insertions(+), 27 deletions(-) diff --git a/gcc/config/rs6000/predicates.md b/gcc/config/rs6000/predicates.md index b1fcc69bb60..a1764018545 100644 --- a/gcc/config/rs6000/predicates.md +++ b/gcc/config/rs6000/predicates.md @@ -760,7 +760,7 @@ (define_predicate "easy_vector_constant_add_self" return 0; elt = BYTES_BIG_ENDIAN ? GET_MODE_NUNITS (mode) - 1 : 0; val = const_vector_elt_as_int (op, elt); - val = ((val & 0xff) ^ 0x80) - 0x80; + val = sext_hwi (val, 8); return EASY_VECTOR_15_ADD_SELF (val); }) diff --git a/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.cc b/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.cc index 5efe9b22d8b..dff9a0d8835 100644 --- a/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.cc +++ b/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.cc @@ -6021,7 +6021,7 @@ num_insns_constant_gpr (HOST_WIDE_INT value) else if (TARGET_POWERPC64) { - HOST_WIDE_INT low = ((value & 0xffffffff) ^ 0x80000000) - 0x80000000; + HOST_WIDE_INT low = sext_hwi (value, 32); HOST_WIDE_INT high = value >> 31; if (high == 0 || high == -1) @@ -8456,7 +8456,7 @@ darwin_rs6000_legitimate_lo_sum_const_p (rtx x, machine_mode mode) } /* We only care if the access(es) would cause a change to the high part. */ - offset = ((offset & 0xffff) ^ 0x8000) - 0x8000; + offset = sext_hwi (offset, 16); return SIGNED_16BIT_OFFSET_EXTRA_P (offset, extra); } @@ -8522,7 +8522,7 @@ mem_operand_gpr (rtx op, machine_mode mode) if (GET_CODE (addr) == LO_SUM) /* For lo_sum addresses, we must allow any offset except one that causes a wrap, so test only the low 16 bits. */ - offset = ((offset & 0xffff) ^ 0x8000) - 0x8000; + offset = sext_hwi (offset, 16); return SIGNED_16BIT_OFFSET_EXTRA_P (offset, extra); } @@ -8562,7 +8562,7 @@ mem_operand_ds_form (rtx op, machine_mode mode) if (GET_CODE (addr) == LO_SUM) /* For lo_sum addresses, we must allow any offset except one that causes a wrap, so test only the low 16 bits. */ - offset = ((offset & 0xffff) ^ 0x8000) - 0x8000; + offset = sext_hwi (offset, 16); return SIGNED_16BIT_OFFSET_EXTRA_P (offset, extra); } @@ -9136,7 +9136,7 @@ rs6000_legitimize_address (rtx x, rtx oldx ATTRIBUTE_UNUSED, { HOST_WIDE_INT high_int, low_int; rtx sum; - low_int = ((INTVAL (XEXP (x, 1)) & 0xffff) ^ 0x8000) - 0x8000; + low_int = sext_hwi (INTVAL (XEXP (x, 1)), 16); if (low_int >= 0x8000 - extra) low_int = 0; high_int = INTVAL (XEXP (x, 1)) - low_int; @@ -10203,7 +10203,7 @@ rs6000_emit_set_const (rtx dest, rtx source) lo = operand_subword_force (dest, WORDS_BIG_ENDIAN != 0, DImode); emit_move_insn (hi, GEN_INT (c >> 32)); - c = ((c & 0xffffffff) ^ 0x80000000) - 0x80000000; + c = sext_hwi (c, 32); emit_move_insn (lo, GEN_INT (c)); } else @@ -10242,7 +10242,7 @@ rs6000_emit_set_long_const (rtx dest, HOST_WIDE_INT c) if ((ud4 == 0xffff && ud3 == 0xffff && ud2 == 0xffff && (ud1 & 0x8000)) || (ud4 == 0 && ud3 == 0 && ud2 == 0 && ! (ud1 & 0x8000))) - emit_move_insn (dest, GEN_INT ((ud1 ^ 0x8000) - 0x8000)); + emit_move_insn (dest, GEN_INT (sext_hwi (ud1, 16))); else if ((ud4 == 0xffff && ud3 == 0xffff && (ud2 & 0x8000)) || (ud4 == 0 && ud3 == 0 && ! (ud2 & 0x8000))) @@ -10250,7 +10250,7 @@ rs6000_emit_set_long_const (rtx dest, HOST_WIDE_INT c) temp = !can_create_pseudo_p () ? dest : gen_reg_rtx (DImode); emit_move_insn (ud1 != 0 ? copy_rtx (temp) : dest, - GEN_INT (((ud2 << 16) ^ 0x80000000) - 0x80000000)); + GEN_INT (sext_hwi (ud2 << 16, 32))); if (ud1 != 0) emit_move_insn (dest, gen_rtx_IOR (DImode, copy_rtx (temp), @@ -10261,8 +10261,7 @@ rs6000_emit_set_long_const (rtx dest, HOST_WIDE_INT c) temp = !can_create_pseudo_p () ? dest : gen_reg_rtx (DImode); gcc_assert (ud2 & 0x8000); - emit_move_insn (copy_rtx (temp), - GEN_INT (((ud2 << 16) ^ 0x80000000) - 0x80000000)); + emit_move_insn (copy_rtx (temp), GEN_INT (sext_hwi (ud2 << 16, 32))); if (ud1 != 0) emit_move_insn (copy_rtx (temp), gen_rtx_IOR (DImode, copy_rtx (temp), @@ -10273,7 +10272,7 @@ rs6000_emit_set_long_const (rtx dest, HOST_WIDE_INT c) { temp = !can_create_pseudo_p () ? dest : gen_reg_rtx (DImode); HOST_WIDE_INT num = (ud2 << 16) | ud1; - rs6000_emit_set_long_const (temp, (num ^ 0x80000000) - 0x80000000); + rs6000_emit_set_long_const (temp, sext_hwi (num, 32)); rtx one = gen_rtx_AND (DImode, temp, GEN_INT (0xffffffff)); rtx two = gen_rtx_ASHIFT (DImode, temp, GEN_INT (32)); emit_move_insn (dest, gen_rtx_IOR (DImode, one, two)); @@ -10283,8 +10282,7 @@ rs6000_emit_set_long_const (rtx dest, HOST_WIDE_INT c) { temp = !can_create_pseudo_p () ? dest : gen_reg_rtx (DImode); - emit_move_insn (copy_rtx (temp), - GEN_INT (((ud3 << 16) ^ 0x80000000) - 0x80000000)); + emit_move_insn (copy_rtx (temp), GEN_INT (sext_hwi (ud3 << 16, 32))); if (ud2 != 0) emit_move_insn (copy_rtx (temp), gen_rtx_IOR (DImode, copy_rtx (temp), @@ -10336,8 +10334,7 @@ rs6000_emit_set_long_const (rtx dest, HOST_WIDE_INT c) { temp = !can_create_pseudo_p () ? dest : gen_reg_rtx (DImode); - emit_move_insn (copy_rtx (temp), - GEN_INT (((ud4 << 16) ^ 0x80000000) - 0x80000000)); + emit_move_insn (copy_rtx (temp), GEN_INT (sext_hwi (ud4 << 16, 32))); if (ud3 != 0) emit_move_insn (copy_rtx (temp), gen_rtx_IOR (DImode, copy_rtx (temp), @@ -14167,8 +14164,7 @@ print_operand (FILE *file, rtx x, int code) /* If constant, low-order 16 bits of constant, signed. Otherwise, write normally. */ if (INT_P (x)) - fprintf (file, HOST_WIDE_INT_PRINT_DEC, - ((INTVAL (x) & 0xffff) ^ 0x8000) - 0x8000); + fprintf (file, HOST_WIDE_INT_PRINT_DEC, sext_hwi (INTVAL (x), 16)); else print_operand (file, x, 0); return; @@ -28719,14 +28715,12 @@ constant_generates_xxspltiw (vec_const_128bit_type *vsx_const) /* See if we can use VSPLTISH or VSPLTISW. */ if (vsx_const->all_half_words_same) { - unsigned short h_word = vsx_const->half_words[0]; - short sign_h_word = ((h_word & 0xffff) ^ 0x8000) - 0x8000; + short sign_h_word = vsx_const->half_words[0]; if (EASY_VECTOR_15 (sign_h_word)) return 0; } - unsigned int word = vsx_const->words[0]; - int sign_word = ((word & 0xffffffff) ^ 0x80000000) - 0x80000000; + int sign_word = vsx_const->words[0]; if (EASY_VECTOR_15 (sign_word)) return 0; diff --git a/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.md b/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.md index 3bae303086b..4bd1dfd3da9 100644 --- a/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.md +++ b/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.md @@ -1787,7 +1787,7 @@ (define_expand "add<mode>3" } HOST_WIDE_INT val = INTVAL (operands[2]); - HOST_WIDE_INT low = ((val & 0xffff) ^ 0x8000) - 0x8000; + HOST_WIDE_INT low = sext_hwi (val, 16); HOST_WIDE_INT rest = trunc_int_for_mode (val - low, <MODE>mode); if (<MODE>mode == DImode && !satisfies_constraint_L (GEN_INT (rest))) @@ -1930,7 +1930,7 @@ (define_split (set (match_dup 0) (plus:GPR (match_dup 0) (match_dup 4)))] { HOST_WIDE_INT val = INTVAL (operands[2]); - HOST_WIDE_INT low = ((val & 0xffff) ^ 0x8000) - 0x8000; + HOST_WIDE_INT low = sext_hwi (val, 16); HOST_WIDE_INT rest = trunc_int_for_mode (val - low, <MODE>mode); operands[4] = GEN_INT (low); @@ -8213,7 +8213,7 @@ (define_split operands[2] = operand_subword (operands[0], endian, 0, <MODE>mode); operands[3] = operand_subword (operands[0], 1 - endian, 0, <MODE>mode); operands[4] = GEN_INT (value >> 32); - operands[1] = GEN_INT (((value & 0xffffffff) ^ 0x80000000) - 0x80000000); + operands[1] = GEN_INT (sext_hwi (value, 32)); }) (define_split @@ -9577,7 +9577,7 @@ (define_split operands[3] = operand_subword_force (operands[0], WORDS_BIG_ENDIAN != 0, DImode); operands[4] = GEN_INT (value >> 32); - operands[1] = GEN_INT (((value & 0xffffffff) ^ 0x80000000) - 0x80000000); + operands[1] = GEN_INT (sext_hwi (value, 32)); }) (define_split @@ -12425,7 +12425,7 @@ (define_peephole2 SImode, operands[1], operands[2]); HOST_WIDE_INT c = INTVAL (cnst); - HOST_WIDE_INT sextc = ((c & 0xffff) ^ 0x8000) - 0x8000; + HOST_WIDE_INT sextc = sext_hwi (c, 16); HOST_WIDE_INT xorv = c ^ sextc; operands[9] = GEN_INT (xorv); -- 2.17.1 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 2/3]rs6000: NFC use sext_hwi to replace ((v&0xf..f)^0x80..0) - 0x80..0 2022-12-01 7:10 ` Jiufu Guo @ 2022-12-01 12:16 ` guojiufu 2022-12-02 8:56 ` Kewen.Lin 0 siblings, 1 reply; 16+ messages in thread From: guojiufu @ 2022-12-01 12:16 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Jiufu Guo; +Cc: Kewen.Lin, segher, dje.gcc, linkw, gcc-patches On 2022-12-01 15:10, Jiufu Guo via Gcc-patches wrote: > Hi Kewen, > > 在 12/1/22 2:11 PM, Kewen.Lin 写道: >> on 2022/12/1 13:35, Jiufu Guo wrote: >>> Hi Kewen, >>> >>> Thanks for your quick and insight review! >>> >>> 在 12/1/22 1:17 PM, Kewen.Lin 写道: >>>> Hi Jeff, >>>> >>>> on 2022/12/1 09:36, Jiufu Guo wrote: >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> This patch just uses sext_hwi to replace the expression like: >>>>> ((value & 0xf..f) ^ 0x80..0) - 0x80..0 for rs6000.cc and rs6000.md. >>>>> >>>>> Bootstrap & regtest pass on ppc64{,le}. >>>>> Is this ok for trunk? >>>> >>>> You didn't say it clearly but I guessed you have grepped in the >>>> whole >>>> config/rs6000 directory, right? I noticed there are still two >>>> places >>>> using this kind of expression in function >>>> constant_generates_xxspltiw, >>>> but I assumed it's intentional as their types are not HOST_WIDE_INT. >>>> >>>> gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.cc: short sign_h_word = ((h_word & >>>> 0xffff) ^ 0x8000) - 0x8000; >>>> gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.cc: int sign_word = ((word & 0xffffffff) ^ >>>> 0x80000000) - 0x80000000; >>>> >>>> If so, could you state it clearly in commit log like "with type >>>> signed/unsigned HOST_WIDE_INT" or similar? >>>> >>> Good question! >>> >>> And as you said sext_hwi is more for "signed/unsigned HOST_WIDE_INT". >>> For these two places, it seems sext_hwi is not needed actually! >>> And I did see why these expressions are used, may be just an >>> assignment >>> is ok. >> >> ah, I see. I agree using the assignment is quite enough. Could you >> please also simplify them together? Since they are with the form >> "((value & 0xf..f) ^ 0x80..0) - 0x80..0" too, and can be refactored >> in a better way. Thanks! > > Sure, I believe just "short sign_h_word = vsx_const->half_words[0];" > should be correct :-), and included in the updated patch. > > Updated patch is attached, bootstrap®test is on going. Bootstrap and regtest pass on ppc64{,le}. BR, Jeff (Jiufu) > > > BR, > Jeff (Jiufu) > >> >> BR, >> Kewen >> ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 2/3]rs6000: NFC use sext_hwi to replace ((v&0xf..f)^0x80..0) - 0x80..0 2022-12-01 12:16 ` guojiufu @ 2022-12-02 8:56 ` Kewen.Lin 2022-12-05 6:11 ` Jiufu Guo 0 siblings, 1 reply; 16+ messages in thread From: Kewen.Lin @ 2022-12-02 8:56 UTC (permalink / raw) To: guojiufu; +Cc: segher, dje.gcc, linkw, gcc-patches on 2022/12/1 20:16, guojiufu wrote: > On 2022-12-01 15:10, Jiufu Guo via Gcc-patches wrote: >> Hi Kewen, >> >> 在 12/1/22 2:11 PM, Kewen.Lin 写道: >>> on 2022/12/1 13:35, Jiufu Guo wrote: >>>> Hi Kewen, >>>> >>>> Thanks for your quick and insight review! >>>> >>>> 在 12/1/22 1:17 PM, Kewen.Lin 写道: >>>>> Hi Jeff, >>>>> >>>>> on 2022/12/1 09:36, Jiufu Guo wrote: >>>>>> Hi, >>>>>> >>>>>> This patch just uses sext_hwi to replace the expression like: >>>>>> ((value & 0xf..f) ^ 0x80..0) - 0x80..0 for rs6000.cc and rs6000.md. >>>>>> >>>>>> Bootstrap & regtest pass on ppc64{,le}. >>>>>> Is this ok for trunk? >>>>> >>>>> You didn't say it clearly but I guessed you have grepped in the whole >>>>> config/rs6000 directory, right? I noticed there are still two places >>>>> using this kind of expression in function constant_generates_xxspltiw, >>>>> but I assumed it's intentional as their types are not HOST_WIDE_INT. >>>>> >>>>> gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.cc: short sign_h_word = ((h_word & 0xffff) ^ 0x8000) - 0x8000; >>>>> gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.cc: int sign_word = ((word & 0xffffffff) ^ 0x80000000) - 0x80000000; >>>>> >>>>> If so, could you state it clearly in commit log like "with type >>>>> signed/unsigned HOST_WIDE_INT" or similar? >>>>> >>>> Good question! >>>> >>>> And as you said sext_hwi is more for "signed/unsigned HOST_WIDE_INT". >>>> For these two places, it seems sext_hwi is not needed actually! >>>> And I did see why these expressions are used, may be just an assignment >>>> is ok. >>> >>> ah, I see. I agree using the assignment is quite enough. Could you >>> please also simplify them together? Since they are with the form >>> "((value & 0xf..f) ^ 0x80..0) - 0x80..0" too, and can be refactored >>> in a better way. Thanks! >> >> Sure, I believe just "short sign_h_word = vsx_const->half_words[0];" >> should be correct :-), and included in the updated patch. >> >> Updated patch is attached, bootstrap®test is on going. > on 2022/12/1 15:10, Jiufu Guo wrote: > From 8aa8e1234b6ec34473434951a3a6177253aac770 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > From: Jiufu Guo <guojiufu@linux.ibm.com> > Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2022 13:13:37 +0800 > Subject: [PATCH 2/2]rs6000: update ((v&0xf..f)^0x80..0) - 0x80..0 with code: like sext_hwi > May be shorter with "rs6000: Update sign extension computation with sext_hwi"? > This patch just replaces the expression like: > ((value & 0xf..f) ^ 0x80..0) - 0x80..0 to better code(e.g. sext_hwi) for > rs6000.cc, rs6000.md and predicates.md (files under rs6000/). > Bootstrap and regtest pass on ppc64{,le}. > Thanks for updating and testing, this patch is OK. BR, Kewen ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 2/3]rs6000: NFC use sext_hwi to replace ((v&0xf..f)^0x80..0) - 0x80..0 2022-12-02 8:56 ` Kewen.Lin @ 2022-12-05 6:11 ` Jiufu Guo 2022-12-09 1:51 ` Jiufu Guo 0 siblings, 1 reply; 16+ messages in thread From: Jiufu Guo @ 2022-12-05 6:11 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Kewen.Lin; +Cc: segher, dje.gcc, linkw, gcc-patches Hi Kewen, "Kewen.Lin" <linkw@linux.ibm.com> writes: > on 2022/12/1 20:16, guojiufu wrote: >> On 2022-12-01 15:10, Jiufu Guo via Gcc-patches wrote: >>> Hi Kewen, >>> >>> 在 12/1/22 2:11 PM, Kewen.Lin 写道: >>>> on 2022/12/1 13:35, Jiufu Guo wrote: >>>>> Hi Kewen, >>>>> >>>>> Thanks for your quick and insight review! >>>>> >>>>> 在 12/1/22 1:17 PM, Kewen.Lin 写道: >>>>>> Hi Jeff, >>>>>> >>>>>> on 2022/12/1 09:36, Jiufu Guo wrote: >>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This patch just uses sext_hwi to replace the expression like: >>>>>>> ((value & 0xf..f) ^ 0x80..0) - 0x80..0 for rs6000.cc and rs6000.md. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Bootstrap & regtest pass on ppc64{,le}. >>>>>>> Is this ok for trunk? >>>>>> >>>>>> You didn't say it clearly but I guessed you have grepped in the whole >>>>>> config/rs6000 directory, right? I noticed there are still two places >>>>>> using this kind of expression in function constant_generates_xxspltiw, >>>>>> but I assumed it's intentional as their types are not HOST_WIDE_INT. >>>>>> >>>>>> gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.cc: short sign_h_word = ((h_word & 0xffff) ^ 0x8000) - 0x8000; >>>>>> gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.cc: int sign_word = ((word & 0xffffffff) ^ 0x80000000) - 0x80000000; >>>>>> >>>>>> If so, could you state it clearly in commit log like "with type >>>>>> signed/unsigned HOST_WIDE_INT" or similar? >>>>>> >>>>> Good question! >>>>> >>>>> And as you said sext_hwi is more for "signed/unsigned HOST_WIDE_INT". >>>>> For these two places, it seems sext_hwi is not needed actually! >>>>> And I did see why these expressions are used, may be just an assignment >>>>> is ok. >>>> >>>> ah, I see. I agree using the assignment is quite enough. Could you >>>> please also simplify them together? Since they are with the form >>>> "((value & 0xf..f) ^ 0x80..0) - 0x80..0" too, and can be refactored >>>> in a better way. Thanks! >>> >>> Sure, I believe just "short sign_h_word = vsx_const->half_words[0];" >>> should be correct :-), and included in the updated patch. >>> >>> Updated patch is attached, bootstrap®test is on going. >> > > on 2022/12/1 15:10, Jiufu Guo wrote: >> From 8aa8e1234b6ec34473434951a3a6177253aac770 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 >> From: Jiufu Guo <guojiufu@linux.ibm.com> >> Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2022 13:13:37 +0800 >> Subject: [PATCH 2/2]rs6000: update ((v&0xf..f)^0x80..0) - 0x80..0 with code: like sext_hwi >> > > May be shorter with "rs6000: Update sign extension computation with > sext_hwi"? Thanks for your great suggestions! > >> This patch just replaces the expression like: >> ((value & 0xf..f) ^ 0x80..0) - 0x80..0 to better code(e.g. sext_hwi) for >> rs6000.cc, rs6000.md and predicates.md (files under rs6000/). > > >> Bootstrap and regtest pass on ppc64{,le}. >> > > Thanks for updating and testing, this patch is OK. BR, Jeff (Jiufu) > > BR, > Kewen ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 2/3]rs6000: NFC use sext_hwi to replace ((v&0xf..f)^0x80..0) - 0x80..0 2022-12-05 6:11 ` Jiufu Guo @ 2022-12-09 1:51 ` Jiufu Guo 0 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread From: Jiufu Guo @ 2022-12-09 1:51 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Jiufu Guo via Gcc-patches; +Cc: Kewen.Lin, segher, dje.gcc, linkw Hi, Jiufu Guo via Gcc-patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org> writes: > Hi Kewen, > > "Kewen.Lin" <linkw@linux.ibm.com> writes: >> on 2022/12/1 20:16, guojiufu wrote: >>> On 2022-12-01 15:10, Jiufu Guo via Gcc-patches wrote: >>>> Hi Kewen, cut... >>> From 8aa8e1234b6ec34473434951a3a6177253aac770 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 >>> From: Jiufu Guo <guojiufu@linux.ibm.com> >>> Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2022 13:13:37 +0800 >>> Subject: [PATCH 2/2]rs6000: update ((v&0xf..f)^0x80..0) - 0x80..0 with code: like sext_hwi >>> >> >> May be shorter with "rs6000: Update sign extension computation with >> sext_hwi"? > Thanks for your great suggestions! >> >>> This patch just replaces the expression like: >>> ((value & 0xf..f) ^ 0x80..0) - 0x80..0 to better code(e.g. sext_hwi) for >>> rs6000.cc, rs6000.md and predicates.md (files under rs6000/). >> >> >>> Bootstrap and regtest pass on ppc64{,le}. >>> >> >> Thanks for updating and testing, this patch is OK. Committed via r13-4556. Thanks again! BR, Jeff (Jiufu) > > BR, > Jeff (Jiufu) > >> >> BR, >> Kewen ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* [PATCH 3/3]rs6000: NFC no need copy_rtx in rs6000_emit_set_long_const and rs6000_emit_set_const 2022-12-01 1:36 [PATCH 1/3]rs6000: NFC use more readable pattern to clean high 32 bits Jiufu Guo 2022-12-01 1:36 ` [PATCH 2/3]rs6000: NFC use sext_hwi to replace ((v&0xf..f)^0x80..0) - 0x80..0 Jiufu Guo @ 2022-12-01 1:36 ` Jiufu Guo 2022-12-01 3:31 ` Kewen.Lin 1 sibling, 1 reply; 16+ messages in thread From: Jiufu Guo @ 2022-12-01 1:36 UTC (permalink / raw) To: gcc-patches; +Cc: segher, dje.gcc, linkw, guojiufu Hi, Function rs6000_emit_set_const/rs6000_emit_set_long_const are only invoked from two "define_split"s where the target operand is limited to gpc_reg_operand or int_reg_operand, then the operand must be REG_P. And in rs6000_emit_set_const/rs6000_emit_set_long_const, to create temp rtx, it is using code like "gen_reg_rtx({S|D}Imode)", it must also be REG_P. So, copy_rtx is not needed for temp and dest. This patch removes those "copy_rtx" for rs6000_emit_set_const and rs6000_emit_set_long_const. Bootstrap & regtest pass on ppc64{,le}. Is this ok for trunk? BR, Jeff (Jiufu) gcc/ChangeLog: * config/rs6000/rs6000.cc (rs6000_emit_set_const): Remove copy_rtx. (rs6000_emit_set_long_const): Likewise. --- gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.cc | 58 +++++++++++++------------------------ 1 file changed, 20 insertions(+), 38 deletions(-) diff --git a/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.cc b/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.cc index 718072cc9a1..1a51b79ebfe 100644 --- a/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.cc +++ b/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.cc @@ -10186,10 +10186,9 @@ rs6000_emit_set_const (rtx dest, rtx source) case E_SImode: temp = !can_create_pseudo_p () ? dest : gen_reg_rtx (SImode); - emit_insn (gen_rtx_SET (copy_rtx (temp), - GEN_INT (c & ~(HOST_WIDE_INT) 0xffff))); + emit_insn (gen_rtx_SET (temp, GEN_INT (c & ~(HOST_WIDE_INT) 0xffff))); emit_insn (gen_rtx_SET (dest, - gen_rtx_IOR (SImode, copy_rtx (temp), + gen_rtx_IOR (SImode, temp, GEN_INT (c & 0xffff)))); break; @@ -10198,10 +10197,8 @@ rs6000_emit_set_const (rtx dest, rtx source) { rtx hi, lo; - hi = operand_subword_force (copy_rtx (dest), WORDS_BIG_ENDIAN == 0, - DImode); - lo = operand_subword_force (dest, WORDS_BIG_ENDIAN != 0, - DImode); + hi = operand_subword_force (dest, WORDS_BIG_ENDIAN == 0, DImode); + lo = operand_subword_force (dest, WORDS_BIG_ENDIAN != 0, DImode); emit_move_insn (hi, GEN_INT (c >> 32)); c = sext_hwi (c, 32); emit_move_insn (lo, GEN_INT (c)); @@ -10249,23 +10246,19 @@ rs6000_emit_set_long_const (rtx dest, HOST_WIDE_INT c) { temp = !can_create_pseudo_p () ? dest : gen_reg_rtx (DImode); - emit_move_insn (ud1 != 0 ? copy_rtx (temp) : dest, + emit_move_insn (ud1 != 0 ? temp : dest, GEN_INT (sext_hwi (ud2 << 16, 32))); if (ud1 != 0) - emit_move_insn (dest, - gen_rtx_IOR (DImode, copy_rtx (temp), - GEN_INT (ud1))); + emit_move_insn (dest, gen_rtx_IOR (DImode, temp, GEN_INT (ud1))); } else if (ud3 == 0 && ud4 == 0) { temp = !can_create_pseudo_p () ? dest : gen_reg_rtx (DImode); gcc_assert (ud2 & 0x8000); - emit_move_insn (copy_rtx (temp), GEN_INT (sext_hwi (ud2 << 16, 32))); + emit_move_insn (temp, GEN_INT (sext_hwi (ud2 << 16, 32))); if (ud1 != 0) - emit_move_insn (copy_rtx (temp), - gen_rtx_IOR (DImode, copy_rtx (temp), - GEN_INT (ud1))); + emit_move_insn (temp, gen_rtx_IOR (DImode, temp, GEN_INT (ud1))); emit_move_insn (dest, gen_rtx_AND (DImode, temp, GEN_INT (0xffffffff))); } else if (ud1 == ud3 && ud2 == ud4) @@ -10282,18 +10275,13 @@ rs6000_emit_set_long_const (rtx dest, HOST_WIDE_INT c) { temp = !can_create_pseudo_p () ? dest : gen_reg_rtx (DImode); - emit_move_insn (copy_rtx (temp), GEN_INT (sext_hwi (ud3 << 16, 32))); + emit_move_insn (temp, GEN_INT (sext_hwi (ud3 << 16, 32))); if (ud2 != 0) - emit_move_insn (copy_rtx (temp), - gen_rtx_IOR (DImode, copy_rtx (temp), - GEN_INT (ud2))); - emit_move_insn (ud1 != 0 ? copy_rtx (temp) : dest, - gen_rtx_ASHIFT (DImode, copy_rtx (temp), - GEN_INT (16))); + emit_move_insn (temp, gen_rtx_IOR (DImode, temp, GEN_INT (ud2))); + emit_move_insn (ud1 != 0 ? temp : dest, + gen_rtx_ASHIFT (DImode, temp, GEN_INT (16))); if (ud1 != 0) - emit_move_insn (dest, - gen_rtx_IOR (DImode, copy_rtx (temp), - GEN_INT (ud1))); + emit_move_insn (dest, gen_rtx_IOR (DImode, temp, GEN_INT (ud1))); } else if (TARGET_PREFIXED) { @@ -10334,23 +10322,17 @@ rs6000_emit_set_long_const (rtx dest, HOST_WIDE_INT c) { temp = !can_create_pseudo_p () ? dest : gen_reg_rtx (DImode); - emit_move_insn (copy_rtx (temp), GEN_INT (sext_hwi (ud4 << 16, 32))); + emit_move_insn (temp, GEN_INT (sext_hwi (ud4 << 16, 32))); if (ud3 != 0) - emit_move_insn (copy_rtx (temp), - gen_rtx_IOR (DImode, copy_rtx (temp), - GEN_INT (ud3))); + emit_move_insn (temp, gen_rtx_IOR (DImode, temp, GEN_INT (ud3))); - emit_move_insn (ud2 != 0 || ud1 != 0 ? copy_rtx (temp) : dest, - gen_rtx_ASHIFT (DImode, copy_rtx (temp), - GEN_INT (32))); + emit_move_insn (ud2 != 0 || ud1 != 0 ? temp : dest, + gen_rtx_ASHIFT (DImode, temp, GEN_INT (32))); if (ud2 != 0) - emit_move_insn (ud1 != 0 ? copy_rtx (temp) : dest, - gen_rtx_IOR (DImode, copy_rtx (temp), - GEN_INT (ud2 << 16))); + emit_move_insn (ud1 != 0 ? temp : dest, + gen_rtx_IOR (DImode, temp, GEN_INT (ud2 << 16))); if (ud1 != 0) - emit_move_insn (dest, - gen_rtx_IOR (DImode, copy_rtx (temp), - GEN_INT (ud1))); + emit_move_insn (dest, gen_rtx_IOR (DImode, temp, GEN_INT (ud1))); } } -- 2.17.1 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 3/3]rs6000: NFC no need copy_rtx in rs6000_emit_set_long_const and rs6000_emit_set_const 2022-12-01 1:36 ` [PATCH 3/3]rs6000: NFC no need copy_rtx in rs6000_emit_set_long_const and rs6000_emit_set_const Jiufu Guo @ 2022-12-01 3:31 ` Kewen.Lin 2022-12-01 4:52 ` Jiufu Guo 0 siblings, 1 reply; 16+ messages in thread From: Kewen.Lin @ 2022-12-01 3:31 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Jiufu Guo; +Cc: segher, dje.gcc, linkw, gcc-patches Hi Jeff, on 2022/12/1 09:36, Jiufu Guo wrote: > Hi, > > Function rs6000_emit_set_const/rs6000_emit_set_long_const are only invoked from > two "define_split"s where the target operand is limited to gpc_reg_operand or > int_reg_operand, then the operand must be REG_P. > And in rs6000_emit_set_const/rs6000_emit_set_long_const, to create temp rtx, > it is using code like "gen_reg_rtx({S|D}Imode)", it must also be REG_P. > So, copy_rtx is not needed for temp and dest. > > This patch removes those "copy_rtx" for rs6000_emit_set_const and > rs6000_emit_set_long_const. > > Bootstrap & regtest pass on ppc64{,le}. > Is this ok for trunk? This patch is okay, thanks! For the subject, IMHO it's better to use something like: "rs6000: Remove useless copy_rtx in rs6000_emit_set_{,long}_const". I don't see NFC tag used much in GCC, though it's used a lot in llvm, but anyway you can append (NFC)/[NFC] at the end if you like. :) BR, Kewen ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 3/3]rs6000: NFC no need copy_rtx in rs6000_emit_set_long_const and rs6000_emit_set_const 2022-12-01 3:31 ` Kewen.Lin @ 2022-12-01 4:52 ` Jiufu Guo 2022-12-09 12:25 ` Jiufu Guo 0 siblings, 1 reply; 16+ messages in thread From: Jiufu Guo @ 2022-12-01 4:52 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Kewen.Lin; +Cc: segher, dje.gcc, linkw, gcc-patches Hi Kewen, 在 12/1/22 11:31 AM, Kewen.Lin 写道: > Hi Jeff, > > on 2022/12/1 09:36, Jiufu Guo wrote: >> Hi, >> >> Function rs6000_emit_set_const/rs6000_emit_set_long_const are only invoked from >> two "define_split"s where the target operand is limited to gpc_reg_operand or >> int_reg_operand, then the operand must be REG_P. >> And in rs6000_emit_set_const/rs6000_emit_set_long_const, to create temp rtx, >> it is using code like "gen_reg_rtx({S|D}Imode)", it must also be REG_P. >> So, copy_rtx is not needed for temp and dest. >> >> This patch removes those "copy_rtx" for rs6000_emit_set_const and >> rs6000_emit_set_long_const. >> >> Bootstrap & regtest pass on ppc64{,le}. >> Is this ok for trunk? > > This patch is okay, thanks! For the subject, IMHO it's better to use something > like: "rs6000: Remove useless copy_rtx in rs6000_emit_set_{,long}_const". > I don't see NFC tag used much in GCC, though it's used a lot in llvm, but > anyway you can append (NFC)/[NFC] at the end if you like. :) > "rs6000: Remove useless copy_rtx in rs6000_emit_set_{,long}_const" is great! Thanks for your review and suggestions! BR, Jeff (Jiufu) > BR, > Kewen ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 3/3]rs6000: NFC no need copy_rtx in rs6000_emit_set_long_const and rs6000_emit_set_const 2022-12-01 4:52 ` Jiufu Guo @ 2022-12-09 12:25 ` Jiufu Guo 0 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread From: Jiufu Guo @ 2022-12-09 12:25 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Jiufu Guo via Gcc-patches; +Cc: Kewen.Lin, segher, dje.gcc, linkw Jiufu Guo via Gcc-patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org> writes: > Hi Kewen, > > 在 12/1/22 11:31 AM, Kewen.Lin 写道: >> Hi Jeff, >> >> on 2022/12/1 09:36, Jiufu Guo wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> Function rs6000_emit_set_const/rs6000_emit_set_long_const are only invoked from >>> two "define_split"s where the target operand is limited to gpc_reg_operand or >>> int_reg_operand, then the operand must be REG_P. >>> And in rs6000_emit_set_const/rs6000_emit_set_long_const, to create temp rtx, >>> it is using code like "gen_reg_rtx({S|D}Imode)", it must also be REG_P. >>> So, copy_rtx is not needed for temp and dest. >>> >>> This patch removes those "copy_rtx" for rs6000_emit_set_const and >>> rs6000_emit_set_long_const. >>> >>> Bootstrap & regtest pass on ppc64{,le}. >>> Is this ok for trunk? >> >> This patch is okay, thanks! For the subject, IMHO it's better to use something >> like: "rs6000: Remove useless copy_rtx in rs6000_emit_set_{,long}_const". >> I don't see NFC tag used much in GCC, though it's used a lot in llvm, but >> anyway you can append (NFC)/[NFC] at the end if you like. :) >> > > "rs6000: Remove useless copy_rtx in rs6000_emit_set_{,long}_const" is great! > > Thanks for your review and suggestions! Thanks for comments and review! And committed via r13-4583-g71b31d13757ae0. BR, Jeff (Jiufu) > > > BR, > Jeff (Jiufu) > >> BR, >> Kewen ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2022-12-09 12:26 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 16+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2022-12-01 1:36 [PATCH 1/3]rs6000: NFC use more readable pattern to clean high 32 bits Jiufu Guo 2022-12-01 1:36 ` [PATCH 2/3]rs6000: NFC use sext_hwi to replace ((v&0xf..f)^0x80..0) - 0x80..0 Jiufu Guo 2022-12-01 5:17 ` Kewen.Lin 2022-12-01 5:30 ` Kewen.Lin 2022-12-01 6:32 ` Jiufu Guo 2022-12-01 5:35 ` Jiufu Guo 2022-12-01 6:11 ` Kewen.Lin 2022-12-01 7:10 ` Jiufu Guo 2022-12-01 12:16 ` guojiufu 2022-12-02 8:56 ` Kewen.Lin 2022-12-05 6:11 ` Jiufu Guo 2022-12-09 1:51 ` Jiufu Guo 2022-12-01 1:36 ` [PATCH 3/3]rs6000: NFC no need copy_rtx in rs6000_emit_set_long_const and rs6000_emit_set_const Jiufu Guo 2022-12-01 3:31 ` Kewen.Lin 2022-12-01 4:52 ` Jiufu Guo 2022-12-09 12:25 ` Jiufu Guo
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).