Hi! The recent ifcvt changes result in movcc being attempted with comparisons like (ltgt (reg:CCFPU flags) (const_int 0)). I see several issues with the current ix86_expand_int_movcc code: 1) the code was unprepared to handle *reverse_condition* failures (returns of UNKNOWN) 2) for CCFP/CCFPU modes, I think it should be treated like scalar float comparisons, ix86_reverse_condition seems to do the job here 3) compare_code in the second hunk was a dead computation, because the variable is not used afterwards until it is unconditionally overwritten (set to UNKNOWN).
Bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-linux and i686-linux, ok for trunk? 2015-01-08 Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com> PR target/64338 * config/i386/i386.c (ix86_expand_int_movcc): Don't reverse compare_code when it is unconditionally overwritten afterwards. Use ix86_reverse_condition instead of reverse_condition. Don't change code if *reverse_condition* returned UNKNOWN and don't swap ct/cf and negate diff in that case. * g++.dg/opt/pr64338.C: New test. --- gcc/config/i386/i386.c.jj 2015-01-06 09:14:05.000000000 +0100 +++ gcc/config/i386/i386.c 2015-01-07 09:59:09.297790590 +0100 @@ -20830,9 +20830,7 @@ ix86_expand_int_movcc (rtx operands[]) if (diff < 0) { machine_mode cmp_mode = GET_MODE (op0); - - std::swap (ct, cf); - diff = -diff; + enum rtx_code new_code; if (SCALAR_FLOAT_MODE_P (cmp_mode)) { @@ -20842,13 +20840,15 @@ ix86_expand_int_movcc (rtx operands[]) is not valid in general (we may convert non-trapping condition to trapping one), however on i386 we currently emit all comparisons unordered. */ - compare_code = reverse_condition_maybe_unordered (compare_code); - code = reverse_condition_maybe_unordered (code); + new_code = reverse_condition_maybe_unordered (code); } else + new_code = ix86_reverse_condition (code, cmp_mode); + if (new_code != UNKNOWN) { - compare_code = reverse_condition (compare_code); - code = reverse_condition (code); + code = new_code; + std::swap (ct, cf); + diff = -diff; } } @@ -20986,9 +20986,7 @@ ix86_expand_int_movcc (rtx operands[]) if (cf == 0) { machine_mode cmp_mode = GET_MODE (op0); - - cf = ct; - ct = 0; + enum rtx_code new_code; if (SCALAR_FLOAT_MODE_P (cmp_mode)) { @@ -20998,14 +20996,21 @@ ix86_expand_int_movcc (rtx operands[]) that is not valid in general (we may convert non-trapping condition to trapping one), however on i386 we currently emit all comparisons unordered. */ - code = reverse_condition_maybe_unordered (code); + new_code = reverse_condition_maybe_unordered (code); } else { - code = reverse_condition (code); - if (compare_code != UNKNOWN) + new_code = ix86_reverse_condition (code, cmp_mode); + if (compare_code != UNKNOWN && new_code != UNKNOWN) compare_code = reverse_condition (compare_code); } + + if (new_code != UNKNOWN) + { + code = new_code; + cf = ct; + ct = 0; + } } if (compare_code != UNKNOWN) --- gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/opt/pr64338.C.jj 2015-01-07 10:18:04.740275018 +0100 +++ gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/opt/pr64338.C 2015-01-07 10:17:50.000000000 +0100 @@ -0,0 +1,29 @@ +// PR target/64338 +// { dg-do compile } +// { dg-options "-O2" } +// { dg-additional-options "-mtune=generic -march=i586" { target { { i?86-*-* x86_64-*-* } && ia32 } } } + +enum O {}; +struct A { A (); }; +struct B { int fn1 (); }; +struct C { struct D; D *fn2 (); void fn3 (); int fn4 (); }; +struct F { void fn5 (const int & = 0); }; +struct G { F *fn6 (); }; +struct H { int h; }; +struct C::D { friend class C; G *fn7 (); }; +O a; + +void +C::fn3 () +{ + int b = a; + H c; + if (b) + fn2 ()->fn7 ()->fn6 ()->fn5 (); + double d; + if (fn4 ()) + d = c.h > 0; + A e (b ? A () : A ()); + B f; + f.fn1 () && d && fn2 (); +} Jakub