Here is what I came up with for combining the two: /* For (x << c) >> c, optimize into x & ((unsigned)-1 >> c) for unsigned x OR truncate into the precision(type) - c lowest bits of signed x (if they have mode precision or a precision of 1) */ (simplify (rshift (nop_convert? (lshift @0 INTEGER_CST@1)) @@1) (if (wi::ltu_p (wi::to_wide (@1), element_precision (type))) (if (TYPE_UNSIGNED (type)) (bit_and @0 (rshift { build_minus_one_cst (type); } @1)) (if (INTEGRAL_TYPE_P (type)) (with { int width = element_precision (type) - tree_to_uhwi (@1); tree stype = build_nonstandard_integer_type (width, 0); } (if (TYPE_PRECISION (stype) == 1 || type_has_mode_precision_p (stype)) (convert (convert:stype @0)))))))) Let me know what you think. > Btw, I wonder whether we can handle > some cases of widening/truncating converts between the shifts? I will look into this. Drew On Wed, Jul 26, 2023 at 4:40 AM Richard Biener wrote: > On Tue, Jul 25, 2023 at 9:26 PM Drew Ross wrote: > > > > > With that fixed I think for non-vector integrals the above is the most > suitable > > > canonical form of a sign-extension. Note it should also work for any > other > > > constant shift amount - just use the appropriate intermediate > precision for > > > the truncating type. > > > We _might_ want > > > to consider to only use the converts when the intermediate type has > > > mode precision (and as a special case allow one bit as in your above > case) > > > so it can expand to (sign_extend: (subreg: reg)). > > > > Here is a pattern that that only matches to truncations that result in > mode precision (or precision of 1): > > > > (simplify > > (rshift (nop_convert? (lshift @0 INTEGER_CST@1)) @@1) > > (if (INTEGRAL_TYPE_P (type) > > && !TYPE_UNSIGNED (type) > > && wi::gt_p (element_precision (type), wi::to_wide (@1), TYPE_SIGN > (TREE_TYPE (@1)))) > > (with { > > int width = element_precision (type) - tree_to_uhwi (@1); > > tree stype = build_nonstandard_integer_type (width, 0); > > } > > (if (TYPE_PRECISION (stype) == 1 || type_has_mode_precision_p (stype)) > > (convert (convert:stype @0)))))) > > > > Look ok? > > I suppose so. Can you see to amend the existing > > /* Optimize (x << c) >> c into x & ((unsigned)-1 >> c) for unsigned > types. */ > (simplify > (rshift (lshift @0 INTEGER_CST@1) @1) > (if (TYPE_UNSIGNED (type) > && (wi::ltu_p (wi::to_wide (@1), element_precision (type)))) > (bit_and @0 (rshift { build_minus_one_cst (type); } @1)))) > > pattern? You will get a duplicate pattern diagnostic otherwise. It > also looks like this > one has the (nop_convert? ..) missing. Btw, I wonder whether we can handle > some cases of widening/truncating converts between the shifts? > > Richard. > > > > You might also want to verify what RTL expansion > > > produces before/after - it at least shouldn't be worse. > > > > The RTL is slightly better for the mode precision cases and slightly > worse for the precision 1 case. > > > > > That said - do you have any testcase where the canonicalization is an > enabler > > > for further transforms or was this requested stand-alone? > > > > No, I don't have any specific test cases. This patch is just in response > to pr101955. > > > > On Tue, Jul 25, 2023 at 2:55 AM Richard Biener < > richard.guenther@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> On Mon, Jul 24, 2023 at 9:42 PM Jakub Jelinek wrote: > >> > > >> > On Mon, Jul 24, 2023 at 03:29:54PM -0400, Drew Ross via Gcc-patches > wrote: > >> > > So would something like > >> > > > >> > > (simplify > >> > > (rshift (nop_convert? (lshift @0 INTEGER_CST@1)) @@1) > >> > > (with { tree stype = build_nonstandard_integer_type (1, 0); } > >> > > (if (INTEGRAL_TYPE_P (type) > >> > > && !TYPE_UNSIGNED (type) > >> > > && wi::eq_p (wi::to_wide (@1), element_precision (type) - 1)) > >> > > (convert (convert:stype @0))))) > >> > > > >> > > work? > >> > > >> > Certainly swap the if and with and the (with then should be indented > by 1 > >> > column to the right of (if and (convert one further (the reason for > the > >> > swapping is not to call build_nonstandard_integer_type when it will > not be > >> > needed, which will be probably far more often then an actual match). > >> > >> With that fixed I think for non-vector integrals the above is the most > suitable > >> canonical form of a sign-extension. Note it should also work for any > other > >> constant shift amount - just use the appropriate intermediate precision > for > >> the truncating type. You might also want to verify what RTL expansion > >> produces before/after - it at least shouldn't be worse. We _might_ want > >> to consider to only use the converts when the intermediate type has > >> mode precision (and as a special case allow one bit as in your above > case) > >> so it can expand to (sign_extend: (subreg: reg)). > >> > >> > As discussed privately, the above isn't what we want for vectors and > the 2 > >> > shifts are probably best on most arches because even when using -(x & > 1) the > >> > { 1, 1, 1, ... } vector would often needed to be loaded from memory. > >> > >> I think for vectors a vpcmpgt {0,0,0,..}, %xmm is the cheapest way of > >> producing the result. Note that to reflect this on GIMPLE you'd need > >> > >> _2 = _1 < { 0,0...}; > >> res = _2 ? { -1, -1, ...} : { 0, 0,...}; > >> > >> because whether the ISA has a way to produce all-ones masks isn't known. > >> > >> For scalars using -(T)(_1 < 0) would also be possible. > >> > >> That said - do you have any testcase where the canonicalization is an > enabler > >> for further transforms or was this requested stand-alone? > >> > >> Thanks, > >> Richard. > >> > >> > Jakub > >> > > >> > >