On Thu, 2023-08-10 at 15:04 +0200, Stefan Schulze Frielinghaus via Gcc-
patches wrote:
> In the former fix in commit 41ef5a34161356817807be3a2e51fbdbe575ae85 I
> completely missed the fact that the normal form of a generated constant for a
> mode with fewer bits than in HOST_WIDE_INT is a sign extended version of the
> actual constant.  This even holds true for unsigned constants.
> 
> Fixed by masking out the upper bits for the incoming constant and sign
> extending the resulting unsigned constant.
> 
> Bootstrapped and regtested on x64 and s390x.  Ok for mainline?

The patch fails to apply:

patching file gcc/combine.cc
Hunk #1 FAILED at 11923.
Hunk #2 FAILED at 11962.

It looks like some indents are tabs in the source file, but white spaces
in the patch.

> While reading existing optimizations in combine I stumbled across two
> optimizations where either my intuition about the representation of
> unsigned integers via a const_int rtx is wrong, which then in turn would
> probably also mean that this patch is wrong, or that the optimizations
> are missed sometimes.  In other words in the following I would assume
> that the upper bits are masked out:
> 
> diff --git a/gcc/combine.cc b/gcc/combine.cc
> index 468b7fde911..80c4ff0fbaf 100644
> --- a/gcc/combine.cc
> +++ b/gcc/combine.cc
> @@ -11923,7 +11923,7 @@ simplify_compare_const (enum rtx_code code, 
> machine_mode mode,
>        /* (unsigned) < 0x80000000 is equivalent to >= 0.  */
>        else if (is_a <scalar_int_mode> (mode, &int_mode)
>                && GET_MODE_PRECISION (int_mode) - 1 < HOST_BITS_PER_WIDE_INT
> -              && ((unsigned HOST_WIDE_INT) const_op
> +              && (((unsigned HOST_WIDE_INT) const_op & GET_MODE_MASK 
> (int_mode))
>                    == HOST_WIDE_INT_1U << (GET_MODE_PRECISION (int_mode) - 
> 1)))
>         {
>           const_op = 0;
> @@ -11962,7 +11962,7 @@ simplify_compare_const (enum rtx_code code, 
> machine_mode mode,
>        /* (unsigned) >= 0x80000000 is equivalent to < 0.  */
>        else if (is_a <scalar_int_mode> (mode, &int_mode)
>                && GET_MODE_PRECISION (int_mode) - 1 < HOST_BITS_PER_WIDE_INT
> -              && ((unsigned HOST_WIDE_INT) const_op
> +              && (((unsigned HOST_WIDE_INT) const_op & GET_MODE_MASK 
> (int_mode))
>                    == HOST_WIDE_INT_1U << (GET_MODE_PRECISION (int_mode) - 
> 1)))
>         {
>           const_op = 0;
> 
> For example, while bootstrapping on x64 the optimization is missed since
> a LTU comparison in QImode is done and the constant equals
> 0xffffffffffffff80.
> 
> Sorry for inlining another patch, but I would really like to make sure
> that my understanding is correct, now, before I come up with another
> patch.  Thus it would be great if someone could shed some light on this.
> 
> gcc/ChangeLog:
> 
>         * combine.cc (simplify_compare_const): Properly handle unsigned
>         constants while narrowing comparison of memory and constants.
> ---
>  gcc/combine.cc | 19 ++++++++++---------
>  1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/gcc/combine.cc b/gcc/combine.cc
> index e46d202d0a7..468b7fde911 100644
> --- a/gcc/combine.cc
> +++ b/gcc/combine.cc
> @@ -12003,14 +12003,15 @@ simplify_compare_const (enum rtx_code code, 
> machine_mode mode,
>        && !MEM_VOLATILE_P (op0)
>        /* The optimization makes only sense for constants which are big enough
>          so that we have a chance to chop off something at all.  */
> -      && (unsigned HOST_WIDE_INT) const_op > 0xff
> -      /* Bail out, if the constant does not fit into INT_MODE.  */
> -      && (unsigned HOST_WIDE_INT) const_op
> -        < ((HOST_WIDE_INT_1U << (GET_MODE_PRECISION (int_mode) - 1) << 1) - 
> 1)
> +      && ((unsigned HOST_WIDE_INT) const_op & GET_MODE_MASK (int_mode)) > 
> 0xff
>        /* Ensure that we do not overflow during normalization.  */
> -      && (code != GTU || (unsigned HOST_WIDE_INT) const_op < 
> HOST_WIDE_INT_M1U))
> +      && (code != GTU
> +         || ((unsigned HOST_WIDE_INT) const_op & GET_MODE_MASK (int_mode))
> +            < HOST_WIDE_INT_M1U)
> +      && trunc_int_for_mode (const_op, int_mode) == const_op)
>      {
> -      unsigned HOST_WIDE_INT n = (unsigned HOST_WIDE_INT) const_op;
> +      unsigned HOST_WIDE_INT n
> +       = (unsigned HOST_WIDE_INT) const_op & GET_MODE_MASK (int_mode);
>        enum rtx_code adjusted_code;
>  
>        /* Normalize code to either LEU or GEU.  */
> @@ -12051,15 +12052,15 @@ simplify_compare_const (enum rtx_code code, 
> machine_mode mode,
>                 HOST_WIDE_INT_PRINT_HEX ") to (MEM %s "
>                 HOST_WIDE_INT_PRINT_HEX ").\n", GET_MODE_NAME (int_mode),
>                 GET_MODE_NAME (narrow_mode_iter), GET_RTX_NAME (code),
> -               (unsigned HOST_WIDE_INT)const_op, GET_RTX_NAME 
> (adjusted_code),
> -               n);
> +               (unsigned HOST_WIDE_INT) const_op & GET_MODE_MASK (int_mode),
> +               GET_RTX_NAME (adjusted_code), n);
>             }
>           poly_int64 offset = (BYTES_BIG_ENDIAN
>                                ? 0
>                                : (GET_MODE_SIZE (int_mode)
>                                   - GET_MODE_SIZE (narrow_mode_iter)));
>           *pop0 = adjust_address_nv (op0, narrow_mode_iter, offset);
> -         *pop1 = GEN_INT (n);
> +         *pop1 = gen_int_mode (n, narrow_mode_iter);
>           return adjusted_code;
>         }
>      }

-- 
Xi Ruoyao <xry...@xry111.site>
School of Aerospace Science and Technology, Xidian University

Reply via email to