From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-return-42182-listarch-gcc=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 9003 invoked by alias); 4 Dec 2001 13:46:00 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/>
Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 8959 invoked from network); 4 Dec 2001 13:45:54 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO mail.acunia.com) (194.7.211.211)
  by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 4 Dec 2001 13:45:54 -0000
Received: from acunia.com (dhcp-10.0.4.165.leuven.intern.acunia.com [10.0.4.165])
	by mail.acunia.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id fB4DjMR28960
	for <gcc@gcc.gnu.org>; Tue, 4 Dec 2001 14:45:22 +0100
Message-ID: <3C0CD323.2040809@acunia.com>
Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2001 05:46:00 -0000
From: jeroen dobbelaere <jeroen.dobbelaere@acunia.com>
Organization: ACUNIA
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:0.9.4) Gecko/20010914
X-Accept-Language: en-us
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: define_insn : order of matching patterns
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-SW-Source: 2001-12/txt/msg00118.txt.bz2

Hi,

I'm trying to let 'arm-linux-gcc -mcpu=xscale' produce 'smlabb' instructions.
(using gcc-3.0.2)


In 'arm.md', we have following description :

(define_insn "*mulhisi3addsi"
   [(set (match_operand:SI 0 "s_register_operand" "=r")
	(plus:SI (match_operand:SI 1 "s_register_operand" "r")
		 (mult:SI (sign_extend:SI
			   (match_operand:HI 2 "s_register_operand" "%r"))
			  (sign_extend:SI
			   (match_operand:HI 3 "s_register_operand" "r")))))]
   "TARGET_ARM && arm_is_xscale"
   "smlabb%?\\t%0, %2, %3, %1"
   [(set_attr "type" "mult")]
)


But with this, I don't succeed in producing 'smlabb' for a simple example

int test(volatile short a, volatile short b, int length)
{
   int result=0;
   while(length >0)
     {
       result += (int)a*(int)b;
     }

   return result;
}



After duplicating the pattern into :

(define_insn "*mulhisi3addsi_left"
   [(set (match_operand:SI 0 "s_register_operand" "=r")
	(plus:SI (match_operand:SI 1 "s_register_operand" "r")
		 (mult:SI (sign_extend:SI
			   (match_operand:HI 2 "'ts_register_operand" "%r"))
			  (sign_extend:SI
			   (match_operand:HI 3 "s_register_operand" "r")))))]
   "TARGET_ARM && arm_is_xscale"
   "smlabb%?\\t%0, %2, %3, %1"
   [(set_attr "type" "mult")]
)

(define_insn "*mulhisi3addsi_right"
   [(set (match_operand:SI 0 "s_register_operand" "=r")
	(plus:SI (mult:SI (sign_extend:SI
			   (match_operand:HI 1 "s_register_operand" "%r"))
			  (sign_extend:SI
			   (match_operand:HI 2 "s_register_operand" "r")))
		 (match_operand:SI 3 "s_register_operand" "r")
		 ))]
   "TARGET_ARM && arm_is_xscale"
   "smlabb%?\\t%0, %1, %2, %3"
   [(set_attr "type" "mult")]
)


I finally succeed in producing 'smlabb' instructions. It seems that
only '*mulhisi3addsi_right' is used for this.

Now my questions :

1. Why doesn't the original pattern ('*mulhisi3addsi_left') get a match ?
Looking at the instructions in 14.life, it seems that '*mulhisi3addsi_left'
should match, as reg38, generated in insn 37, is the right operand of 'plus:SI'.
But, it instead, '*mulhisi3addsi_right' is matched, which uses the 'mult' pattern
in the left operand of 'plus:SI'

<From 14.life>

(insn 37 36 39 (set (reg:SI 38)
         (mult:SI (sign_extend:SI (reg:HI 36))
             (sign_extend:SI (reg:HI 37)))) 56 {mulhisi3} (insn_list 34 (insn_list 36 (nil)))
     (expr_list:REG_DEAD (reg:HI 36)
         (expr_list:REG_DEAD (reg:HI 37)
             (nil))))

(insn 39 37 40 (set (reg/v:SI 35)
         (plus:SI (reg/v:SI 35)
             (reg:SI 38))) 4 {*arm_addsi3} (insn_list 37 (nil))
     (expr_list:REG_DEAD (reg:SI 38)
         (nil)))


<From 15.combine>

(note 37 36 39 NOTE_INSN_DELETED 0)

(insn 39 37 40 (set (reg/v:SI 35)
         (plus:SI (mult:SI (sign_extend:SI (reg:HI 36))
                 (sign_extend:SI (reg:HI 37)))
             (reg/v:SI 35))) 58 {*mulhisi3addsi_right} (insn_list 36 (insn_list 34 (nil)))
     (expr_list:REG_DEAD (reg:HI 37)
         (expr_list:REG_DEAD (reg:HI 36)
             (nil))))



2. Can I savely remove the '*mulhisi3addsi_left' part, or should I provide
both cases ?


Greetings,
--
Jeroen Dobbelaere
Embedded Software Engineer

ACUNIA Embedded Solutions
http://www.acunia.com