Hi Roger,
Started a test of your latest version.
It appears we miss 64-bit patterns similar to these:
(define_insn ""
[(set (match_operand:SI 0 "register_operand" "=r")
(match_operator:SI 5 "plus_xor_ior_operator"
[(ashift:SI (match_operand:SI 1 "register_operand" "r")
(match_operand:SI 3 "const_int_operand" "n"))
(lshiftrt:SI (match_operand:SI 2 "register_operand" "r")
(match_operand:SI 4 "const_int_operand" "n"))]))]
"INTVAL (operands[3]) + INTVAL (operands[4]) == 32"
"{shd|shrpw} %1,%2,%4,%0"
[(set_attr "type" "shift")
(set_attr "length" "4")])
(define_insn ""
[(set (match_operand:SI 0 "register_operand" "=r")
(match_operator:SI 5 "plus_xor_ior_operator"
[(lshiftrt:SI (match_operand:SI 2 "register_operand" "r")
(match_operand:SI 4 "const_int_operand" "n"))
(ashift:SI (match_operand:SI 1 "register_operand" "r")
(match_operand:SI 3 "const_int_operand" "n"))]))]
"INTVAL (operands[3]) + INTVAL (operands[4]) == 32"
"{shd|shrpw} %1,%2,%4,%0"
[(set_attr "type" "shift")
(set_attr "length" "4")])
I'm wondering if it would be useful to define the 64-bit equivalents using the
"shrpd" instruction.
If that's the case, then I think it would be good to rename "shd_internal" to
"shrpw_internal".
Regards,
Dave
On 2020-08-22 4:52 a.m., Roger Sayle wrote:
> Hi Dave,
>
> It's great to hear from you. It's been a long while.
>
> Sorry, doh! yes, there's a mistake in my patch (that I introduced when I
> renumbered
> the operands in the shd's define_expand to be the more logical 0, 1, 2, 3,
> then 4).
> Sorry for the inconvenience [due to my lack of familiarity with PA-RISC
> assembly].
> Hopefully you should get much better mileage out of the attached revision.
>
> Thanks again (and my sincere apologies),
> Roger
> --
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John David Anglin <dave.ang...@bell.net>
> Sent: 21 August 2020 20:00
> To: Roger Sayle <ro...@nextmovesoftware.com>; 'GCC Patches'
> <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>
> Cc: 'Jeff Law' <l...@redhat.com>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] hppa: Improve expansion of ashldi3 when !TARGET_64BIT
>
> Hi Roger,
>
> On 2020-08-21 8:53 a.m., Roger Sayle wrote:
>> I was wondering whether Dave or Jeff (or someone else with access to
>> real hardware) might "spin" this patch for me?
> This may be totally unrelated to this patch but I hit this error in stage2
> testing your change:
> build/genattrtab ../../gcc/gcc/common.md ../../gcc/gcc/config/pa/pa.md
> insn-conditions.md \
> -Atmp-attrtab.c -Dtmp-dfatab.c -Ltmp-latencytab.c
> genattrtab: Internal error: abort in attr_alt_union, at genattrtab.c:2383
>
> It's great that you are back helpting with the middle-end.
>
> Regards,
> Dave
>
> --
> John David Anglin dave.ang...@bell.net
>
--
John David Anglin dave.ang...@bell.net
