Thank you for your help. I will update the test case.
I test on the Coremark and have 5% improvement on the SiFive CPU.
On Tue, Jan 23, 2024 at 12:24 PM Jeff Law <jeffreya...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On 1/21/24 23:12, Monk Chiang wrote:
> > Since the match.pd transforms (zero_one == 0) ? y : z <op> y,
> > into ((typeof(y))zero_one * z) <op> y. Add splitters to recongize
> > this expression to generate SFB instructions.
> >
> > gcc/ChangeLog:
> > PR target/113095
> > * config/riscv/sfb.md: New splitters to rewrite single bit
> > sign extension as the condition to SFB instructions.
> >
> > gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
> > * gcc.target/riscv/sfb.c: New test.
> > * gcc.target/riscv/pr113095.c: New test.
> So the 113095 test is going to fail to link on rv64 causing a testsuite
> failure. I would suggest it have these dg-options lines instead of the
> one you provided:
>
> /* { dg-options "-O2 -march=rv32gc -mabi=ilp32d -mtune=sifive-7-series"
> { target { rv32 } } } */
> /* { dg-options "-O2 -march=rv64gc -mabi=lp64d -mtune=sifive-7-series" {
> target { rv64 } } } */
>
>
> A similar change is not strictly needed for the new sfb.c test since it
> only does a compile (but not a link) test.
>
> You still didn't indicating what testing was done for this patch.
> Standard practice is to build the compiler and run the testsuite with
> and without your change and verify there are no regressions. Ideally
> new tests should pass as well.
>
> I made the change above locally to pr113095.c to fix those failures on
> rv64. So this is OK with the adjustment to the dg-options line in the
> new pr113095 test.
>
> Jeff
>
>
