On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 3:43 PM, Kyrill Tkachov <kyrylo.tkac...@arm.com> wrote:
>
> On 03/08/15 14:37, Uros Bizjak wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 3:02 PM, Kyrill Tkachov <kyrylo.tkac...@arm.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 03/08/15 13:33, Uros Bizjak wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hello!
>>>>
>>>>> 2015-07-30 Kyrylo Tkachov <kyrylo.tkac...@arm.com>
>>>>>
>>>>> * ifcvt.c (noce_try_store_flag_constants): Make logic of the case
>>>>> when diff == STORE_FLAG_VALUE or diff == -STORE_FLAG_VALUE more
>>>>> explicit. Prefer to add the flag whenever possible.
>>>>> (noce_process_if_block): Try noce_try_store_flag_constants before
>>>>> noce_try_cmove.
>>>>>
>>>>> 2015-07-30 Kyrylo Tkachov <kyrylo.tkac...@arm.com>
>>>>>
>>>>> * gcc.target/aarch64/csel_bfx_1.c: New test.
>>>>> * gcc.target/aarch64/csel_imms_inc_1.c: Likewise.
>>>>
>>>> This patch regressed following tests on x86_64:
>>>>
>>>> FAIL: gcc.target/i386/cmov2.c scan-assembler sbb
>>>> FAIL: gcc.target/i386/cmov3.c scan-assembler cmov[^3]
>>>
>>>
>>> Sorry for that :(
>>> I could have sworn they passed for me during my run...
>>>
>>>> While cmov3 case is questionable by itself in light of PR56309 [1],
>>>> the cnov2 case regressed from:
>>>>
>>>> cmpl %edi, %esi
>>>> sbbl %eax, %eax
>>>> andl $-10, %eax
>>>> addl $5, %eax
>>>> ret
>>>>
>>>> to:
>>>>
>>>> xorl %eax, %eax
>>>> cmpl %esi, %edi
>>>> setbe %al
>>>> negl %eax
>>>> andl $10, %eax
>>>> subl $5, %eax
>>>> ret
>>>>
>>>> Please note that sbb (aka {*x86_movsicc_0_m1} ) is not generated
>>>> anymore. Non-QImode setcc instructions are problematic on x86, since
>>>> they need to be zero-extended to their full length.
>>
>> IMO, we can check if the target is able to generate insn that
>> implements conditional move between 0 and -1 for certain comparison
>> mode, like:
>>
>> #(insn:TI 27 26 28 2 (parallel [
>> # (set (reg:SI 0 ax [orig:87 D.1845 ] [87])
>> # (if_then_else:SI (ltu:SI (reg:CC 17 flags)
>> # (const_int 0 [0]))
>> # (const_int -1 [0xffffffffffffffff])
>> # (const_int 0 [0])))
>> # (clobber (reg:CC 17 flags))
>> # ]) cmov2.c:9 947 {*x86_movsicc_0_m1}
>> # (expr_list:REG_DEAD (reg:CC 17 flags)
>> # (expr_list:REG_UNUSED (reg:CC 17 flags)
>> # (nil))))
>> sbbl %eax, %eax # 27 *x86_movsicc_0_m1 [length =
>> 2]
>>
>> this is the key insn, and as shown above, further asm sequence is
>> similar between patched and unpatched compiler.
>
>
> Hmm yes.
> We have a HAVE_conditional_move check, but that's not fine grained enough.
> How about trying an emit_conditional_move and checking that the result is a
> single insn?
Looking at the x86 movcc expansion code (ix86_expand_int_movcc) I
don't think this is a good idea. In the expander, there is already
quite some target-dependent code that goes great length to utilize sbb
insn as much as possible, before cmove is used.
IMO, as far as x86 is concerned, the best solution would be to revert
the change. ix86_expand_int_movcc already does some tricks from your
patch in a target-efficient way. Generic change that was introduced by
your patch now interferes with this expansion.
Uros.
