public inbox for gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com>
To: Segher Boessenkool <segher@kernel.crashing.org>,
	Jeff Law <jeffreyalaw@gmail.com>,
	Eric Botcazou <botcazou@adacore.com>,
	gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, Richard Biener <rguenther@suse.de>,
	Richard Sandiford <richard.sandiford@arm.com>
Subject: [PATCH] combine, v3: Fix AND handling for WORD_REGISTER_OPERATIONS targets [PR109040]
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2023 12:02:12 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <ZDaBpPyA/XiPOvjw@tucnak> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <ZDZN5sukXDLkdZjW@tucnak>

Hi!

On Wed, Apr 12, 2023 at 08:21:26AM +0200, Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-patches wrote:
> I would have expected something like
> WORD_REGISTER_OPERATIONS && known_le (GET_MODE_PRECISION (mode), BITS_PER_WORD)
> as the condition to use word_mode, rather than just
> WORD_REGISTER_OPERATIONS.  In both spots.  Because larger modes should be
> used as is, not a narrower word_mode instead of them.

In patch form that would be following (given that the combine.cc change
had scalar_int_mode mode we can as well just use normal comparison, and
simplify-rtx.cc has it guarded on HWI_COMPUTABLE_MODE_P, which is also only
true for scalar int modes).

I've tried the pr108947.c testcase, but I see no differences in the assembly
before/after the patch (but dunno if I'm using the right options).
The pr109040.c testcase from the patch I don't see the expected zero
extension without the patch and do see it with it.

As before, I can only test this easily on non-WORD_REGISTER_OPERATIONS
targets.

2023-04-12  Jeff Law  <jlaw@ventanamicro.com>
	    Jakub Jelinek  <jakub@redhat.com>

	PR target/109040
	* combine.cc (simplify_and_const_int_1): Compute nonzero_bits in
	word_mode rather than mode if WORD_REGISTER_OPERATIONS and mode is
	smaller than word_mode.
	* simplify-rtx.cc (simplify_context::simplify_binary_operation_1)
	<case AND>: Likewise.

	* gcc.c-torture/execute/pr109040.c: New test.

--- gcc/combine.cc.jj	2023-04-07 16:02:06.668051629 +0200
+++ gcc/combine.cc	2023-04-12 11:24:18.458240028 +0200
@@ -10055,9 +10055,12 @@ simplify_and_const_int_1 (scalar_int_mod
 
   /* See what bits may be nonzero in VAROP.  Unlike the general case of
      a call to nonzero_bits, here we don't care about bits outside
-     MODE.  */
+     MODE unless WORD_REGISTER_OPERATIONS is true.  */
 
-  nonzero = nonzero_bits (varop, mode) & GET_MODE_MASK (mode);
+  scalar_int_mode tmode = mode;
+  if (WORD_REGISTER_OPERATIONS && GET_MODE_BITSIZE (mode) < BITS_PER_WORD)
+    tmode = word_mode;
+  nonzero = nonzero_bits (varop, tmode) & GET_MODE_MASK (tmode);
 
   /* Turn off all bits in the constant that are known to already be zero.
      Thus, if the AND isn't needed at all, we will have CONSTOP == NONZERO_BITS
@@ -10071,7 +10074,7 @@ simplify_and_const_int_1 (scalar_int_mod
 
   /* If VAROP is a NEG of something known to be zero or 1 and CONSTOP is
      a power of two, we can replace this with an ASHIFT.  */
-  if (GET_CODE (varop) == NEG && nonzero_bits (XEXP (varop, 0), mode) == 1
+  if (GET_CODE (varop) == NEG && nonzero_bits (XEXP (varop, 0), tmode) == 1
       && (i = exact_log2 (constop)) >= 0)
     return simplify_shift_const (NULL_RTX, ASHIFT, mode, XEXP (varop, 0), i);
 
--- gcc/simplify-rtx.cc.jj	2023-03-02 19:09:45.459594212 +0100
+++ gcc/simplify-rtx.cc	2023-04-12 11:26:26.027400305 +0200
@@ -3752,7 +3752,13 @@ simplify_context::simplify_binary_operat
 	return op0;
       if (HWI_COMPUTABLE_MODE_P (mode))
 	{
-	  HOST_WIDE_INT nzop0 = nonzero_bits (trueop0, mode);
+	  /* When WORD_REGISTER_OPERATIONS is true, we need to know the
+	     nonzero bits in WORD_MODE rather than MODE.  */
+          scalar_int_mode tmode = as_a <scalar_int_mode> (mode);
+          if (WORD_REGISTER_OPERATIONS
+	      && GET_MODE_BITSIZE (tmode) < BITS_PER_WORD)
+	    tmode = word_mode;
+	  HOST_WIDE_INT nzop0 = nonzero_bits (trueop0, tmode);
 	  HOST_WIDE_INT nzop1;
 	  if (CONST_INT_P (trueop1))
 	    {
--- gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/execute/pr109040.c.jj	2023-04-12 11:11:56.728938344 +0200
+++ gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/execute/pr109040.c	2023-04-12 11:11:56.728938344 +0200
@@ -0,0 +1,23 @@
+/* PR target/109040 */
+
+typedef unsigned short __attribute__((__vector_size__ (32))) V;
+
+unsigned short a, b, c, d;
+
+void
+foo (V m, unsigned short *ret)
+{
+  V v = 6 > ((V) { 2124, 8 } & m);
+  unsigned short uc = v[0] + a + b + c + d;
+  *ret = uc;
+}
+
+int
+main ()
+{
+  unsigned short x;
+  foo ((V) { 0, 15 }, &x);
+  if (x != (unsigned short) ~0)
+    __builtin_abort ();
+  return 0;
+}

	Jakub


  reply	other threads:[~2023-04-12 10:02 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
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                             ` Jakub Jelinek [this message]
2023-04-12 14:17                               ` [PATCH] combine, v3: Fix " 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=ZDaBpPyA/XiPOvjw@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 \
    --cc=segher@kernel.crashing.org \
    /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).