Re: [PATCH] RISC-V: Use bseti to cover more immediates than with ori alone

[Jeff Law <jeffreyalaw@gmail.com>]

On 11/10/22 14:34, Philipp Tomsich wrote:
> Sequences of the form "a | C" with C being the positive half of a
> signed immediate's range with one extra bit set in addtion are mapped
> to ori and one binvi to avoid using a temporary (and a multi-insn
> sequence to load C into that temporary).
>
> gcc/ChangeLog:
>
> 	* config/riscv/bitmanip.md (*bseti<mode>_extrabit): New pattern
>
> gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
>
> 	* gcc.target/riscv/zbs-bseti.c: New test.
>
> Signed-off-by: Philipp Tomsich <philipp.tomsich@vrull.eu>
> ---
> - Depends on a predicate posted in "RISC-V: Optimize branches testing
>    a bit-range or a shifted immediate".  Depending on the order of
>    applying these, I'll take care to pull that part out of the other
>    patch if needed.
>
>   gcc/config/riscv/bitmanip.md               | 19 +++++++++++++++
>   gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/riscv/zbs-bseti.c | 27 ++++++++++++++++++++++
>   2 files changed, 46 insertions(+)
>   create mode 100644 gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/riscv/zbs-bseti.c
>
> diff --git a/gcc/config/riscv/bitmanip.md b/gcc/config/riscv/bitmanip.md
> index 06126ac4819..436ff4ba958 100644
> --- a/gcc/config/riscv/bitmanip.md
> +++ b/gcc/config/riscv/bitmani
> @@ -512,6 +512,25 @@
>     "bseti\t%0,%1,%S2"
>     [(set_attr "type" "bitmanip")])
>   
> +; Catch those cases where we can use a bseti + ori or bseti + bseti
> +; instead of a lui + addi + or sequence.
> +(define_insn_and_split "*bseti<mode>_extrabit"
> +  [(set (match_operand:X 0 "register_operand" "=r")
> +	(ior:X (match_operand:X 1 "register_operand" "r")
> +	       (match_operand:X 2 "uimm_extra_bit_operand" "i")))]
> +  "TARGET_ZBS"
> +  "#"
> +  "&& reload_completed"
> +  [(set (match_dup 0) (ior:X (match_dup 1) (match_dup 3)))
> +   (set (match_dup 0) (ior:X (match_dup 0) (match_dup 4)))]
> +{
> +	unsigned HOST_WIDE_INT bits = UINTVAL (operands[2]);
> +	unsigned HOST_WIDE_INT topbit = HOST_WIDE_INT_1U << floor_log2 (bits);
> +
> +	operands[3] = GEN_INT (bits &~ topbit);
> +	operands[4] = GEN_INT (topbit);
> +})

I briefly thought you might need an earlyclobber for the output, but you 
consume the input register in the first generated insn, so you should be OK.


OK.

jeff