From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-return-174115-listarch-gcc=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 7187 invoked by alias); 23 Apr 2012 16:08:08 -0000
Received: (qmail 7178 invoked by uid 22791); 23 Apr 2012 16:08:06 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-4.8 required=5.0	tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,KHOP_RCVD_TRUST,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_YE
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from mail-gy0-f175.google.com (HELO mail-gy0-f175.google.com) (209.85.160.175)    by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 23 Apr 2012 16:07:53 +0000
Received: by ghbz2 with SMTP id z2so6697315ghb.20        for <gcc@gcc.gnu.org>; Mon, 23 Apr 2012 09:07:52 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.100.245.10 with SMTP id s10mr4770717anh.65.1335197272335; Mon, 23 Apr 2012 09:07:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.101.118.15 with HTTP; Mon, 23 Apr 2012 09:07:52 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20120423144329.GF3218@bubble.grove.modra.org>
References: <CABu31nNyBhnWHyA1y2r8G8G--QjO2vd_=2Cb1=WqFKr8VpX0xQ@mail.gmail.com>	<CAFiYyc3ZdJG_F=LeAo5JpUT_S9Ku9wV7db15EP_ZOpapXf1crA@mail.gmail.com>	<CABu31nO9reOCtUBHTdo4G7zs+Jcry7=9xs=OjD3_TOvGHgJgEA@mail.gmail.com>	<20120423144329.GF3218@bubble.grove.modra.org>
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2012 16:08:00 -0000
Message-ID: <CABu31nOhyO4fysgD8yqcoriUyxw4xKxOwvgR3tzcaH8jpMZLDw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: A case where PHI-OPT pessimizes the code
From: Steven Bosscher <stevenb.gcc@gmail.com>
To: Alan Modra <amodra@gmail.com>
Cc: Richard Guenther <richard.guenther@gmail.com>, GCC Mailing List <gcc@gcc.gnu.org>, 	Richard Guenther <rguenther@suse.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc.gcc.gnu.org>
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
X-SW-Source: 2012-04/txt/msg00792.txt.bz2

On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 4:43 PM, Alan Modra <amodra@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 02:50:13PM +0200, Steven Bosscher wrote:
>>   csui = (ONEUL << a);
>>   b = ((csui & cst) != 0);
>>   if (b)
>>     return 1;
>>   else
>>     return 0;
>
> We (powerpc) would be much better if this were
>
>   csui = (ONEUL << a);
>   return (csui & cst) >> a;
>
> Other targets would probably benefit too.

Yes, this has been discussed before. See here:

  http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2003-01/msg01791.html
  http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2003-01/msg01950.html

However, like Roger, I would prefer to not implement this right now. I
only want to port the code from stmt.c to GIMPLE, at least initially.
Later on, we could look at different code generation approaches for
this kind of switch() statement.

Ciao!
Steven