Hi Maciej:
On Mon, Nov 1, 2021 at 8:41 PM Maciej W. Rozycki <ma...@embecosm.com> wrote:
>
> Fix a build regression from commit 04a9b554ba1a ("RISC-V: Cost model
> for zba extension."):
>
> .../gcc/config/riscv/riscv.c: In function 'bool riscv_rtx_costs(rtx,
> machine_mode, int, int, int*, bool)':
> .../gcc/config/riscv/riscv.c:2018:11: error: 'and' of mutually exclusive
> equal-tests is always 0 [-Werror]
> 2018 | && IN_RANGE (INTVAL (XEXP (XEXP (x, 0), 0)), 1, 3))
> | ^~
> .../gcc/config/riscv/riscv.c:2047:17: error: unused variable 'ashift_lhs'
> [-Werror=unused-variable]
> 2047 | rtx ashift_lhs = XEXP (and_lhs, 0);
> | ^~~~~~~~~~
>
>
> by removing an incorrect REG_P check applied to a constant expression
> and getting rid of the unused variable.
>
> gcc/
> * config/riscv/riscv.c (riscv_rtx_costs): Remove a REG_P check
> and an unused local variable with shNadd/shNadd.uw pattern
> handling.
> ---
> Hi,
>
> As described above and I guess almost obvious -- I gather the code was
> only verified with a `-Wno-error' build and the handling of the shNadd
> pattern has not been actually covered owing to this bug making the
> condition impossible to match.
>
> OK to apply then?
>
> Maciej
> ---
> gcc/config/riscv/riscv.c | 2 --
> 1 file changed, 2 deletions(-)
>
> gcc-riscv-rtx-costs-zba-shnadd.diff
> Index: gcc/gcc/config/riscv/riscv.c
> ===================================================================
> --- gcc.orig/gcc/config/riscv/riscv.c
> +++ gcc/gcc/config/riscv/riscv.c
> @@ -2013,7 +2013,6 @@ riscv_rtx_costs (rtx x, machine_mode mod
> && ((!TARGET_64BIT && (mode == SImode)) ||
> (TARGET_64BIT && (mode == DImode)))
> && (GET_CODE (XEXP (x, 0)) == ASHIFT)
> - && REG_P (XEXP (XEXP (x, 0), 0))
> && CONST_INT_P (XEXP (XEXP (x, 0), 0))
> && IN_RANGE (INTVAL (XEXP (XEXP (x, 0), 0)), 1, 3))
I think that's my mistake...it should fix following check rather than
remove the REG_P like that:
@@ -2014,8 +2014,8 @@ riscv_rtx_costs (rtx x, machine_mode mode, int
outer_code, int opno ATTRIBUTE_UN
(TARGET_64BIT && (mode == DImode)))
&& (GET_CODE (XEXP (x, 0)) == ASHIFT)
&& REG_P (XEXP (XEXP (x, 0), 0))
- && CONST_INT_P (XEXP (XEXP (x, 0), 0))
- && IN_RANGE (INTVAL (XEXP (XEXP (x, 0), 0)), 1, 3))
+ && CONST_INT_P (XEXP (XEXP (x, 0), 1))
+ && IN_RANGE (INTVAL (XEXP (XEXP (x, 0), 1)), 1, 3))
{
*total = COSTS_N_INSNS (1);
return true;
shNadd pattern:
(define_insn "*shNadd"
[(set (match_operand:X 0 "register_operand" "=r")
(plus:X (ashift:X (match_operand:X 1 "register_operand" "r")
# What I want to check is here, it should be
XEXP (XEXP (x, 0), 1)
(match_operand:QI 2 "immediate_operand" "I"))
(match_operand:X 3 "register_operand" "r")))]
Otherwise LGTM, feel free to commit once you address this issue.
Thanks!
