On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 3:15 PM, Uros Bizjak <ubiz...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> gen_rtx_ZERO_EXTEND isn't suitable in ix86_md_asm_adjust since ZERO_EXTEND >> may be expaned. We should call gen_zero_extendqiXi2 instead. >> >> OK for trunk? > > No, your patch will clobber flags when multiple flag outputs are used. > > (I plan to rewrite x86 zero_extend patterns to use preferred_for_size > attribute with peepholes, this will magically solve this bug and > readeflags-1.c failure). No, the above mentioned patch won't fly, it limits AND insn operands too much with "q" constraint. So, the patch below is what I plan to commit after bootstrap/regression test on x86_64-linux-gnu {,-m32}. 2015-07-10 Uros Bizjak <ubiz...@gmail.com> PR target/66813 * config/i386/i386.c (ix86_md_asm_adjust): Emit movstrictqi sequence for TARGET_ZERO_EXTEND_WITH_AND targets. testsuite/ChangeLog: 2015-07-10 Uros Bizjak <ubiz...@gmail.com> PR target/66813 * gcc.target/i386/pr66813.c: New test. Uros.
Index: testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr66813.c =================================================================== --- testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr66813.c (revision 0) +++ testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr66813.c (revision 0) @@ -0,0 +1,4 @@ +/* { dg-do compile { target { ia32 } } } */ +/* { dg-options "-march=pentium" } */ + +#include "asm-flag-5.c" Index: config/i386/i386.c =================================================================== --- config/i386/i386.c (revision 225648) +++ config/i386/i386.c (working copy) @@ -45842,7 +45842,17 @@ ix86_md_asm_adjust (vec<rtx> &outputs, vec<rtx> &/ { rtx destqi = gen_reg_rtx (QImode); emit_insn (gen_rtx_SET (destqi, x)); - x = gen_rtx_ZERO_EXTEND (dest_mode, destqi); + + if (TARGET_ZERO_EXTEND_WITH_AND + && optimize_function_for_speed_p (cfun)) + { + x = force_reg (dest_mode, const0_rtx); + + emit_insn (gen_movstrictqi + (gen_lowpart (QImode, x), destqi)); + } + else + x = gen_rtx_ZERO_EXTEND (dest_mode, destqi); } emit_insn (gen_rtx_SET (dest, x)); }