From: Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com>
To: Eric Botcazou <botcazou@adacore.com>
Cc: Jeff Law <jeffreyalaw@gmail.com>,
Richard Biener <rguenther@suse.de>,
Richard Sandiford <richard.sandiford@arm.com>,
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] combine: Fix simplify_comparison AND handling for WORD_REGISTER_OPERATIONS targets [PR109040]
Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2023 13:37:13 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <ZC6u6ZUxaFlFvx16@tucnak> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <2220543.iZASKD2KPV@fomalhaut>
On Thu, Apr 06, 2023 at 12:51:20PM +0200, Eric Botcazou wrote:
> > If we want to fix it in the combiner, I think the fix would be following.
> > The optimization is about
> > (and:SI (subreg:SI (reg:HI xxx) 0) (const_int 0x84c))
> > and IMHO we can only optimize it into
> > (subreg:SI (and:HI (reg:HI xxx) (const_int 0x84c)) 0)
> > if we know that the upper bits of the REG are zeros.
>
> The reasoning is that, for WORD_REGISTER_OPERATIONS, the subword AND operation
> is done on the full word register, in other words that it's in effect:
>
> (subreg:SI (and:SI (reg:SI xxx) (const_int 0x84c)) 0)
>
> that is equivalent to the initial RTL so correct for WORD_REGISTER_OPERATIONS.
If the
(and:SI (subreg:SI (reg:HI xxx) 0) (const_int 0x84c))
to
(subreg:SI (and:HI (reg:HI xxx) (const_int 0x84c)) 0)
transformation is kosher for WORD_REGISTER_OPERATIONS, then I guess the
invalid operation is then in
simplify_context::simplify_binary_operation_1
case AND:
...
if (HWI_COMPUTABLE_MODE_P (mode))
{
HOST_WIDE_INT nzop0 = nonzero_bits (trueop0, mode);
HOST_WIDE_INT nzop1;
if (CONST_INT_P (trueop1))
{
HOST_WIDE_INT val1 = INTVAL (trueop1);
/* If we are turning off bits already known off in OP0, we need
not do an AND. */
if ((nzop0 & ~val1) == 0)
return op0;
}
We have there op0==trueop0 (reg:HI 175) and op1==trueop1 (const_int 2124
[0x84c]).
We then for integral? modes smaller than word_mode would then need to
actually check nonzero_bits in the word_mode (on paradoxical subreg of
trueop0?). If INTVAL (trueop1) is >= 0, then I think just doing
nonzero_bits in the wider mode would be all we need (although the
subsequent (nzop1 & nzop0) == 0 case probably wants to have the current
nonzero_bits calls), not really sure what for WORD_REGISTER_OPERATIONS
means AND with a constant which has the most significant bit set for the
upper bits.
So, perhaps just in the return op0; case add further code for
WORD_REGISTER_OPERATIONS and sub-word modes which will call nonzero_bits
again for the word mode and decide if it is still safe.
> > Now, this patch fixes the PR, but certainly generates worse (but correct)
> > code than the dse.cc patch. So perhaps we want both of them?
>
> What happens if you disable the step I mentioned (patchlet attached)?
That patch doesn't change anything at all on the testcase, it is still
miscompiled.
Jakub
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-04-06 11:37 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 37+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-04-05 9:16 [PATCH] dse: Handle SUBREGs of word REGs differently " Jakub Jelinek
2023-04-05 13:14 ` Jeff Law
2023-04-05 14:51 ` Jakub Jelinek
2023-04-05 16:17 ` Jeff Law
2023-04-05 16:48 ` Jakub Jelinek
2023-04-05 17:31 ` Jeff Law
2023-04-06 9:31 ` Richard Sandiford
2023-04-06 9:37 ` Li, Pan2
2023-04-06 14:49 ` Jeff Law
2023-04-06 14:45 ` Jeff Law
2023-04-06 10:15 ` Eric Botcazou
2023-04-06 10:31 ` [PATCH] combine: Fix simplify_comparison AND handling " Jakub Jelinek
2023-04-06 10:51 ` Eric Botcazou
2023-04-06 11:37 ` Jakub Jelinek [this message]
2023-04-06 14:21 ` Eric Botcazou
2023-04-09 0:25 ` Jeff Law
2023-04-10 7:10 ` Jakub Jelinek
2023-04-12 1:26 ` Jeff Law
2023-04-12 6:21 ` Jakub Jelinek
2023-04-12 10:02 ` [PATCH] combine, v3: Fix " Jakub Jelinek
2023-04-12 14:17 ` Jeff Law
2023-04-12 14:30 ` Jakub Jelinek
2023-04-12 15:24 ` Segher Boessenkool
2023-04-12 16:58 ` [PATCH] combine, v4: " Jakub Jelinek
2023-04-13 4:05 ` Jeff Law
2023-04-13 10:57 ` Segher Boessenkool
2023-04-13 12:35 ` Jeff Law
2023-04-13 13:45 ` [PATCH] loop-iv: Fix up bounds computation Jakub Jelinek
2023-04-13 15:07 ` Jeff Law
2023-04-13 19:37 ` Jeff Law
2023-04-12 13:29 ` [PATCH] combine: Fix simplify_comparison AND handling for WORD_REGISTER_OPERATIONS targets [PR109040] Jeff Law
2023-04-09 1:15 ` Jeff Law
2023-04-10 5:13 ` Hongtao Liu
2023-04-10 5:15 ` Hongtao Liu
2023-04-06 14:35 ` Jeff Law
2023-04-06 15:06 ` Jeff Law
2023-04-06 14:53 ` [PATCH] dse: Handle SUBREGs of word REGs differently " Jeff Law
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=ZC6u6ZUxaFlFvx16@tucnak \
--to=jakub@redhat.com \
--cc=botcazou@adacore.com \
--cc=gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=jeffreyalaw@gmail.com \
--cc=rguenther@suse.de \
--cc=richard.sandiford@arm.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
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).