The recent change in TImode parameter passing on x86_64 results in the
FAIL of pr91681-1.c.  The issue is that with the extra flexibility,
the combine pass is now spoilt for choice between using either the
*add<dwi>3_doubleword_concat or the *add<dwi>3_doubleword_zext
patterns, when one operand is a *concat and the other is a zero_extend.
The solution proposed below is provide an *add<dwi>3_doubleword_concat_zext
define_insn_and_split, that can benefit both from the register allocation
of *concat, and still avoid the xor normally required by zero extension.

I'm investigating a follow-up refinement to improve register allocation
further by avoiding the early clobber in the =&r, and handling (custom)
reloads explicitly, but this piece resolves the testcase failure.

This patch has been tested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu with make bootstrap
and make -k check, both with and without --target_board=unix{-m32}
with no new failures.  Ok for mainline?


2023-07-11  Roger Sayle  <ro...@nextmovesoftware.com>

gcc/ChangeLog
        PR target/91681
        * config/i386/i386.md (*add<dwi>3_doubleword_concat_zext): New
        define_insn_and_split derived from *add<dwi>3_doubleword_concat
        and *add<dwi>3_doubleword_zext.


Thanks,
Roger
--

diff --git a/gcc/config/i386/i386.md b/gcc/config/i386/i386.md
index e47ced1..ca6977f 100644
--- a/gcc/config/i386/i386.md
+++ b/gcc/config/i386/i386.md
@@ -6222,6 +6222,39 @@
              (clobber (reg:CC FLAGS_REG))])]
  "split_double_mode (<DWI>mode, &operands[0], 2, &operands[0], &operands[5]);")
 
+(define_insn_and_split "*add<dwi>3_doubleword_concat_zext"
+  [(set (match_operand:<DWI> 0 "register_operand" "=&r")
+       (plus:<DWI>
+         (any_or_plus:<DWI>
+           (ashift:<DWI>
+             (zero_extend:<DWI>
+               (match_operand:DWIH 2 "nonimmediate_operand" "rm"))
+             (match_operand:QI 3 "const_int_operand"))
+           (zero_extend:<DWI>
+             (match_operand:DWIH 4 "nonimmediate_operand" "rm")))
+         (zero_extend:<DWI>
+           (match_operand:DWIH 1 "nonimmediate_operand" "rm")))
+   (clobber (reg:CC FLAGS_REG))]
+  "INTVAL (operands[3]) == <MODE_SIZE> * BITS_PER_UNIT"
+  "#"
+  "&& reload_completed"
+  [(set (match_dup 0) (match_dup 4))
+   (set (match_dup 5) (match_dup 2))
+   (parallel [(set (reg:CCC FLAGS_REG)
+                  (compare:CCC
+                    (plus:DWIH (match_dup 0) (match_dup 1))
+                    (match_dup 0)))
+             (set (match_dup 0)
+                  (plus:DWIH (match_dup 0) (match_dup 1)))])
+   (parallel [(set (match_dup 5)
+                  (plus:DWIH
+                    (plus:DWIH
+                      (ltu:DWIH (reg:CC FLAGS_REG) (const_int 0))
+                      (match_dup 5))
+                    (const_int 0)))
+             (clobber (reg:CC FLAGS_REG))])]
+ "split_double_mode (<DWI>mode, &operands[0], 1, &operands[0], &operands[5]);")
+
 (define_insn "*add<mode>_1"
   [(set (match_operand:SWI48 0 "nonimmediate_operand" "=rm,r,r,r")
        (plus:SWI48

Reply via email to