Andrew Pinski via Gcc-patches <[email protected]> writes:
> There is no canonical form for this case defined. So the aarch64 backend needs
> a pattern to match both of these forms.
>
> The forms are:
> (set (reg/i:SI 0 x0)
> (if_then_else:SI (eq (reg:CC 66 cc)
> (const_int 0 [0]))
> (reg:SI 97)
> (const_int -1 [0xffffffffffffffff])))
> and
> (set (reg/i:SI 0 x0)
> (ior:SI (neg:SI (ne:SI (reg:CC 66 cc)
> (const_int 0 [0])))
> (reg:SI 102)))
>
> Currently the aarch64 backend matches the first form so this
> patch adds a insn_and_split to match the second form and
> convert it to the first form.
>
> OK? Bootstrapped and tested on aarch64-linux-gnu with no regressions
>
> PR target/109657
>
> gcc/ChangeLog:
>
> * config/aarch64/aarch64.md (*cmov<mode>_insn_m1): New
> insn_and_split pattern.
>
> gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
>
> * gcc.target/aarch64/csinv-2.c: New test.
> ---
> gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64.md | 20 +++++++++++++++++
> gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/aarch64/csinv-2.c | 26 ++++++++++++++++++++++
> 2 files changed, 46 insertions(+)
> create mode 100644 gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/aarch64/csinv-2.c
>
> diff --git a/gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64.md b/gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64.md
> index e1a2b265b20..57fe5601350 100644
> --- a/gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64.md
> +++ b/gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64.md
> @@ -4194,6 +4194,26 @@ (define_insn "*cmovsi_insn_uxtw"
> [(set_attr "type" "csel, csel, csel, csel, csel, mov_imm, mov_imm")]
> )
>
> +;; There are two canonical forms for `cmp ? -1 : a`.
> +;; This is the second form and is here to help combine.
> +;; Support `-(cmp) | a` into `cmp ? -1 : a` to be canonical in the backend.
> +(define_insn_and_split "*cmov<mode>_insn_m1"
> + [(set (match_operand:GPI 0 "register_operand" "=r")
> + (ior:GPI
> + (neg:GPI
> + (match_operator:GPI 1 "aarch64_comparison_operator"
> + [(match_operand 2 "cc_register" "") (const_int 0)]))
> + (match_operand 3 "register_operand" "r")))]
> + ""
> + "#"
> + "&& true"
> + [(set (match_dup 0)
> + (if_then_else:GPI (match_dup 1)
> + (const_int -1) (match_dup 3)))]
Sorry for the nit, but the formatting of the last two lines looks odd IMO.
How about:
(if_then_else:GPI (match_dup 1) (const_int -1) (match_dup 3))...
or:
(if_then_else:GPI (match_dup 1)
(const_int -1)
(match_dup 3))...
OK with that change, thanks.
Richard
> + {}
> + [(set_attr "type" "csel")]
> +)
> +
> (define_insn "*cmovdi_insn_uxtw"
> [(set (match_operand:DI 0 "register_operand" "=r")
> (if_then_else:DI
> diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/aarch64/csinv-2.c
> b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/aarch64/csinv-2.c
> new file mode 100644
> index 00000000000..89132acb713
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/aarch64/csinv-2.c
> @@ -0,0 +1,26 @@
> +/* { dg-do compile } */
> +/* { dg-options "-O2" } */
> +/* PR target/109657: (a ? -1 : 0) | b could be better */
> +
> +/* Both functions should have the same assembly of:
> + cmp w1, 0
> + csinv w0, w0, wzr, eq
> +
> + We should not get:
> + cmp w1, 0
> + csetm w1, ne
> + orr w0, w1, w0
> + */
> +/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times "csinv\tw\[0-9\]" 2 } } */
> +/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-not "csetm\tw\[0-9\]" } } */
> +unsigned b(unsigned a, unsigned b)
> +{
> + if(b)
> + return -1;
> + return a;
> +}
> +unsigned b1(unsigned a, unsigned b)
> +{
> + unsigned t = b ? -1 : 0;
> + return a | t;
> +}
