From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-patches-return-414010-listarch-gcc-patches=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 112222 invoked by alias); 13 Nov 2015 15:57:57 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc-patches.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 112210 invoked by uid 89); 13 Nov 2015 15:57:57 -0000
Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none
X-Virus-Found: No
X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2
X-HELO: mail-ob0-f179.google.com
Received: from mail-ob0-f179.google.com (HELO mail-ob0-f179.google.com) (209.85.214.179) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES128-GCM-SHA256 encrypted) ESMTPS; Fri, 13 Nov 2015 15:57:55 +0000
Received: by obdgf3 with SMTP id gf3so76989762obd.3        for <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>; Fri, 13 Nov 2015 07:57:53 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.60.23.104 with SMTP id l8mr13161151oef.19.1447430273587; Fri, 13 Nov 2015 07:57:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.60.138.6 with HTTP; Fri, 13 Nov 2015 07:57:53 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <20151113143649.GA27800@gate.crashing.org>
References: <CAFULd4b-NbcO9PcpKgw0PtJ2jaAFy4f1jdxLZ2erNc6MHsbUOg@mail.gmail.com>	<20151113143649.GA27800@gate.crashing.org>
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2015 15:57:00 -0000
Message-ID: <CAFULd4arw2SpOo=Q_b1mcuKQ0QXn8s+UV-h1SpOQTzc4WjBrZA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] simplify-rtx: Simplify trunc of and of shiftrt
From: Uros Bizjak <ubizjak@gmail.com>
To: Segher Boessenkool <segher@kernel.crashing.org>
Cc: "gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org" <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
X-SW-Source: 2015-11/txt/msg01726.txt.bz2

On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 3:36 PM, Segher Boessenkool
<segher@kernel.crashing.org> wrote:
> Hi!
>
> On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 11:02:55AM +0100, Uros Bizjak wrote:
>> on alpha-linux-gnu.
>>
>> The difference starts in combine, where before the patch, we were able
>> to combine insns:
>>
>> (insn 7 6 8 2 (set (reg:DI 82)
>>         (lshiftrt:DI (reg:DI 81 [ x ])
>>             (const_int 16 [0x10]))) pr42269-1.c:8 66 {lshrdi3}
>>      (expr_list:REG_DEAD (reg:DI 81 [ x ])
>>         (nil)))
>> (insn 8 7 11 2 (set (reg:DI 70 [ _2 ])
>>         (sign_extend:DI (subreg:SI (reg:DI 82) 0))) pr42269-1.c:8 2
>> {*extendsidi2_1}
>>      (expr_list:REG_DEAD (reg:DI 82)
>>         (nil)))
>>
>> to:
>>
>> Trying 7 -> 8:
>> Successfully matched this instruction:
>> (set (reg:DI 70 [ _2 ])
>>     (zero_extract:DI (reg/v:DI 80 [ x ])
>>         (const_int 16 [0x10])
>>         (const_int 16 [0x10])))
>> allowing combination of insns 7 and 8
>> original costs 4 + 4 = 8
>> replacement cost 4
>> deferring deletion of insn with uid = 7.
>> modifying insn i3     8: r70:DI=zero_extract(r80:DI,0x10,0x10)
>> deferring rescan insn with uid = 8.
>>
>> After the patch, the combination fails:
>>
>> Trying 7 -> 8:
>> Failed to match this instruction:
>> (set (reg:DI 70 [ _2 ])
>>     (sign_extend:DI (lshiftrt:SI (subreg:SI (reg/v:DI 80 [ x ]) 0)
>>             (const_int 16 [0x10]))))
>
> Somehow, before the patch, it decided to do a zero-extension (where the
> combined insns had a sign extension).  Was that even correct?  Maybe
> many bits of reg 80 (or, hrm, 81 in the orig?!) are known zero?

Oops, this analysis is wrong. I'll re-do the analysis in reported PR 68330 [1].

[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68330

Uros.