On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 2:16 PM, Paolo Bonzini <bonz...@gnu.org> wrote:
> On 07/15/2010 09:57 AM, Uros Bizjak wrote:
>>
>> Hello!
>>
>> I was playing a bit with TARGET_SHIFT_TRUNCATION_MASK on x86 in the
>> hope that redundant masking would get eliminated from:
>>
>> int test (int a, int c)
>> {
>> return a<< (c& 0x1f);
>> }
>>
>> The macro was defined as:
>>
>> +/* Implement TARGET_SHIFT_TRUNCATION_MASK. */
>> +static unsigned HOST_WIDE_INT
>> +ix86_shift_truncation_mask (enum machine_mode mode)
>> +{
>> + switch (mode)
>> + {
>> + case QImode:
>> + case HImode:
>> + case SImode:
>> + return 31;
>> +
>> + case DImode:
>> + if (TARGET_64BIT)
>> + return 63;
>> +
>> + default:
>> + return 0;
>> + }
>> +}
>>
>> However, I was not able to get rid of the masking "and".
>
> FWIW, the reason the hook is not implemented on x86 is that some variants of
> bsf/bsr (I think with memory source) do not honor the truncation.
The reason you pointed out is for SHIFT_COUNT_TRUNCATED. Please note,
that we don't use memory_operands, but even in register operand case,
"bt" insn doesn't truncate the bit-count operand, but performs modulo
operation on it. I.E, "bt %reg, 75" will not return 0, but shift insn
with the same operands will.
Uros.
