Applied to master. Thanks! Philipp.
On Tue, 15 Nov 2022 at 18:36, Jeff Law <jeffreya...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On 11/13/22 13:48, Philipp Tomsich wrote: > > We avoid reassociating "(~(a >> BIT_NO)) & 1" into "((~a) >> BIT_NO) & 1" > > by splitting it into a zero-extraction (bext) and an xori. This both > > avoids burning a register on a temporary and generates a sequence that > > clearly captures 'extract bit, then invert bit'. > > > > This change improves the previously generated > > srl a0,a0,a1 > > not a0,a0 > > andi a0,a0,1 > > into > > bext a0,a0,a1 > > xori a0,a0,1 > > > > Signed-off-by: Philipp Tomsich <philipp.toms...@vrull.eu> > > > > gcc/ChangeLog: > > > > * config/riscv/bitmanip.md: Add split covering > > "(a & (1 << BIT_NO)) ? 0 : 1". > > > > gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog: > > > > * gcc.target/riscv/zbs-bext.c: Add testcases. > > * gcc.target/riscv/zbs-bexti.c: Add testcases. > > OK. Not terribly happy with the SUBREG, but I can guess that's an > artifact of other patterns which require that operand to be QImode. > > > Jeff > > >
