https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78904
--- Comment #4 from Uroš Bizjak <ubizjak at gmail dot com> ---
(In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #3)
> (In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #2)
> > No, unfortunately the above is not a valid x86 insn. x86 has two-operand
> > instructions, so output has to match one of the operands.
>
> But these are pseudos.
Please note that
subreg:QI (zero_extract:SI (reg/v:SI 94 [ a ])
(const_int 8 [0x8])
(const_int 8 [0x8])) 0)
describes the high-part of a 16bit register, e.g. %ah, while
(reg:QI 88 [ _2 ])
describes low-part, e.g. %al
The pattern from the comment #1 models %al <- %ah + %bh, which is not a valid
x86 insn.
> > It looks that combine prefers:
> >
> > (subreg:SI (plus:QI
> > and
> > (subreg:QI (zero_extract:SI (... op ...)
> >
> > while - according to the existing x86 patterns - in the past the patterns
> > were seemingly combined into:
> >
> > (plus:SI
> > and
> > (zero_extract:SI (... op ...)
>
> So when did this change?
>
> Combine in general prefers smaller modes.
I don't know when, perhaps with the rewrite of extzv pattern, when mode was
added to these patterns?
Anyway, I see that some patterns, e.g. *cmpqi_ext_1 are written using
(subreg:QI (zero_extract:SI ...)), which seems consistent with your observation
in Comment #1. Following your explanation, it looks that:
(set (zero_extract:SI (reg:SI 92 [ D.1804 ])
(const_int 8 [0x8])
(const_int 8 [0x8]))
(subreg:SI (_op_:QI ...
corresponds to setting of the highpart register (%ah), and consequently arith
and logic patterns in i386.md have to be rewritten.
