> Am 07.06.2023 um 18:59 schrieb Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-patches > <[email protected]>: > > Hi! > > We have expand_doubleword_clz for a couple of years, where we emit > double-word CLZ as if (high_word == 0) return CLZ (low_word) + word_size; > else return CLZ (high_word); > We can do something similar for CTZ and FFS IMHO, just with the 2 > words swapped. So if (low_word == 0) return CTZ (high_word) + word_size; > else return CTZ (low_word); for CTZ and > if (low_word == 0) { return high_word ? FFS (high_word) + word_size : 0; > else return FFS (low_word); > > The following patch implements that. > > Bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-linux and i686-linux, ok for trunk? Ok Richard > Note, on some targets which implement both word_mode ctz and ffs patterns, > it might be better to incrementally implement those double-word ffs expansion > patterns in md files, because we aren't able to optimize it correctly; > nothing can detect we have just made sure that argument is not 0 and so > don't need to bother with handling that case. So, on ia32 just using > CTZ patterns would be better there, but I think we can even do better and > instead of doing the comparisons of the operands against 0 do the CTZ > expansion followed by testing of flags. > > 2023-06-07 Jakub Jelinek <[email protected]> > > * optabs.cc (expand_ffs): Add forward declaration. > (expand_doubleword_clz): Rename to ... > (expand_doubleword_clz_ctz_ffs): ... this. Add UNOPTAB argument, > handle also doubleword CTZ and FFS in addition to CLZ. > (expand_unop): Adjust caller. Also call it for doubleword > ctz_optab and ffs_optab. > > * gcc.target/i386/ctzll-1.c: New test. > * gcc.target/i386/ffsll-1.c: New test. > > --- gcc/optabs.cc.jj 2023-06-07 09:42:14.701130305 +0200 > +++ gcc/optabs.cc 2023-06-07 14:35:04.909879272 +0200 > @@ -2697,10 +2697,14 @@ expand_clrsb_using_clz (scalar_int_mode > return temp; > } > > -/* Try calculating clz of a double-word quantity as two clz's of word-sized > - quantities, choosing which based on whether the high word is nonzero. */ > +static rtx expand_ffs (scalar_int_mode, rtx, rtx); > + > +/* Try calculating clz, ctz or ffs of a double-word quantity as two clz, ctz > or > + ffs operations on word-sized quantities, choosing which based on whether > the > + high (for clz) or low (for ctz and ffs) word is nonzero. */ > static rtx > -expand_doubleword_clz (scalar_int_mode mode, rtx op0, rtx target) > +expand_doubleword_clz_ctz_ffs (scalar_int_mode mode, rtx op0, rtx target, > + optab unoptab) > { > rtx xop0 = force_reg (mode, op0); > rtx subhi = gen_highpart (word_mode, xop0); > @@ -2709,6 +2713,7 @@ expand_doubleword_clz (scalar_int_mode m > rtx_code_label *after_label = gen_label_rtx (); > rtx_insn *seq; > rtx temp, result; > + int addend = 0; > > /* If we were not given a target, use a word_mode register, not a > 'mode' register. The result will fit, and nobody is expecting > @@ -2721,6 +2726,9 @@ expand_doubleword_clz (scalar_int_mode m > 'target' to tag a REG_EQUAL note on. */ > result = gen_reg_rtx (word_mode); > > + if (unoptab != clz_optab) > + std::swap (subhi, sublo); > + > start_sequence (); > > /* If the high word is not equal to zero, > @@ -2728,7 +2736,13 @@ expand_doubleword_clz (scalar_int_mode m > emit_cmp_and_jump_insns (subhi, CONST0_RTX (word_mode), EQ, 0, > word_mode, true, hi0_label); > > - temp = expand_unop_direct (word_mode, clz_optab, subhi, result, true); > + if (optab_handler (unoptab, word_mode) != CODE_FOR_nothing) > + temp = expand_unop_direct (word_mode, unoptab, subhi, result, true); > + else > + { > + gcc_assert (unoptab == ffs_optab); > + temp = expand_ffs (word_mode, subhi, result); > + } > if (!temp) > goto fail; > > @@ -2739,14 +2753,32 @@ expand_doubleword_clz (scalar_int_mode m > emit_barrier (); > > /* Else clz of the full value is clz of the low word plus the number > - of bits in the high word. */ > + of bits in the high word. Similarly for ctz/ffs of the high word, > + except that ffs should be 0 when both words are zero. */ > emit_label (hi0_label); > > - temp = expand_unop_direct (word_mode, clz_optab, sublo, 0, true); > + if (unoptab == ffs_optab) > + { > + convert_move (result, const0_rtx, true); > + emit_cmp_and_jump_insns (sublo, CONST0_RTX (word_mode), EQ, 0, > + word_mode, true, after_label); > + } > + > + if (optab_handler (unoptab, word_mode) != CODE_FOR_nothing) > + temp = expand_unop_direct (word_mode, unoptab, sublo, NULL_RTX, true); > + else > + { > + gcc_assert (unoptab == ffs_optab); > + temp = expand_unop_direct (word_mode, ctz_optab, sublo, NULL_RTX, > true); > + addend = 1; > + } > + > if (!temp) > goto fail; > + > temp = expand_binop (word_mode, add_optab, temp, > - gen_int_mode (GET_MODE_BITSIZE (word_mode), word_mode), > + gen_int_mode (GET_MODE_BITSIZE (word_mode) + addend, > + word_mode), > result, true, OPTAB_DIRECT); > if (!temp) > goto fail; > @@ -2759,7 +2791,7 @@ expand_doubleword_clz (scalar_int_mode m > seq = get_insns (); > end_sequence (); > > - add_equal_note (seq, target, CLZ, xop0, NULL_RTX, mode); > + add_equal_note (seq, target, optab_to_code (unoptab), xop0, NULL_RTX, > mode); > emit_insn (seq); > return target; > > @@ -3252,7 +3284,8 @@ expand_unop (machine_mode mode, optab un > if (GET_MODE_SIZE (int_mode) == 2 * UNITS_PER_WORD > && optab_handler (unoptab, word_mode) != CODE_FOR_nothing) > { > - temp = expand_doubleword_clz (int_mode, op0, target); > + temp = expand_doubleword_clz_ctz_ffs (int_mode, op0, target, > + unoptab); > if (temp) > return temp; > } > @@ -3499,6 +3532,18 @@ expand_unop (machine_mode mode, optab un > if (temp) > return temp; > } > + > + if ((unoptab == ctz_optab || unoptab == ffs_optab) > + && optimize_insn_for_speed_p () > + && is_a <scalar_int_mode> (mode, &int_mode) > + && GET_MODE_SIZE (int_mode) == 2 * UNITS_PER_WORD > + && (optab_handler (unoptab, word_mode) != CODE_FOR_nothing > + || optab_handler (ctz_optab, word_mode) != CODE_FOR_nothing)) > + { > + temp = expand_doubleword_clz_ctz_ffs (int_mode, op0, target, unoptab); > + if (temp) > + return temp; > + } > > try_libcall: > /* Now try a library call in this mode. */ > --- gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/ctzll-1.c.jj 2023-06-07 > 14:38:58.749648164 +0200 > +++ gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/ctzll-1.c 2023-06-07 14:41:22.676659439 > +0200 > @@ -0,0 +1,9 @@ > +/* { dg-do compile } */ > +/* { dg-options "-O2" } */ > +/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-not "__ctzdi2" } } */ > + > +int > +foo (unsigned long long x) > +{ > + return __builtin_ctzll (x); > +} > --- gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/ffsll-1.c.jj 2023-06-07 > 14:40:00.859789953 +0200 > +++ gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/ffsll-1.c 2023-06-07 14:41:15.104764068 > +0200 > @@ -0,0 +1,9 @@ > +/* { dg-do compile } */ > +/* { dg-options "-O2" } */ > +/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-not "__ffsdi2" } } */ > + > +int > +foo (unsigned long long x) > +{ > + return __builtin_ffsll (x); > +} > > Jakub >
Re: [PATCH] optabs: Implement double-word ctz and ffs expansion
Richard Biener via Gcc-patches Wed, 07 Jun 2023 22:55:30 -0700
- [PATCH] optabs: Implement double-word ctz a... Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-patches
- Re: [PATCH] optabs: Implement double-w... Richard Biener via Gcc-patches
