On Mon, Jun 12, 2023 at 03:29:00PM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
>
>
> On 6/12/23 01:57, Stefan Schulze Frielinghaus via Gcc-patches wrote:
> > Comparisons between memory and constants might be done in a smaller mode
> > resulting in smaller constants which might finally end up as immediates
> > instead of in the literal pool.
> >
> > For example, on s390x a non-symmetric comparison like
> > x <= 0x3fffffffffffffff
> > results in the constant being spilled to the literal pool and an 8 byte
> > memory comparison is emitted. Ideally, an equivalent comparison
> > x0 <= 0x3f
> > where x0 is the most significant byte of x, is emitted where the
> > constant is smaller and more likely to materialize as an immediate.
> >
> > Similarly, comparisons of the form
> > x >= 0x4000000000000000
> > can be shortened into x0 >= 0x40.
> >
> > I'm not entirely sure whether combine is the right place to implement
> > something like this. In my first try I implemented it in
> > TARGET_CANONICALIZE_COMPARISON but then thought other targets might
> > profit from it, too. simplify_context::simplify_relational_operation_1
> > seems to be the wrong place since code/mode may change. Any opinions?
> >
> > gcc/ChangeLog:
> >
> > * combine.cc (simplify_compare_const): Narrow comparison of
> > memory and constant.
> > (try_combine): Adapt new function signature.
> > (simplify_comparison): Adapt new function signature.
> >
> > gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
> >
> > * gcc.target/s390/cmp-mem-const-1.c: New test.
> > * gcc.target/s390/cmp-mem-const-2.c: New test.
> This does seem more general than we'd want to do in the canonicalization
> hook. So thanks for going the extra mile and doing a generic
> implementation.
>
>
>
>
> > @@ -11987,6 +11988,79 @@ simplify_compare_const (enum rtx_code code,
> > machine_mode mode,
> > break;
> > }
> > + /* Narrow non-symmetric comparison of memory and constant as e.g.
> > + x0...x7 <= 0x3fffffffffffffff into x0 <= 0x3f where x0 is the most
> > + significant byte. Likewise, transform x0...x7 >= 0x4000000000000000
> > into
> > + x0 >= 0x40. */
> > + if ((code == LEU || code == LTU || code == GEU || code == GTU)
> > + && is_a <scalar_int_mode> (GET_MODE (op0), &int_mode)
> > + && MEM_P (op0)
> > + && !MEM_VOLATILE_P (op0)
> > + && (unsigned HOST_WIDE_INT)const_op > 0xff)
> > + {
> > + unsigned HOST_WIDE_INT n = (unsigned HOST_WIDE_INT)const_op;
> > + enum rtx_code adjusted_code = code;
> > +
> > + /* If the least significant bit is already zero, then adjust the
> > + comparison in the hope that we hit cases like
> > + op0 <= 0x3ffffdfffffffffe
> > + where the adjusted comparison
> > + op0 < 0x3ffffdffffffffff
> > + can be shortened into
> > + op0' < 0x3ffffd. */
> > + if (code == LEU && (n & 1) == 0)
> > + {
> > + ++n;
> > + adjusted_code = LTU;
> > + }
> > + /* or e.g. op0 < 0x4020000000000000 */
> > + else if (code == LTU && (n & 1) == 0)
> > + {
> > + --n;
> > + adjusted_code = LEU;
> > + }
> > + /* or op0 >= 0x4000000000000001 */
> > + else if (code == GEU && (n & 1) == 1)
> > + {
> > + --n;
> > + adjusted_code = GTU;
> > + }
> > + /* or op0 > 0x3fffffffffffffff. */
> > + else if (code == GTU && (n & 1) == 1)
> > + {
> > + ++n;
> > + adjusted_code = GEU;
> > + }
> > +
> > + scalar_int_mode narrow_mode_iter;
> > + bool lower_p = code == LEU || code == LTU;
> > + bool greater_p = !lower_p;
> > + FOR_EACH_MODE_UNTIL (narrow_mode_iter, int_mode)
> > + {
> > + unsigned nbits = GET_MODE_PRECISION (int_mode)
> > + - GET_MODE_PRECISION (narrow_mode_iter);
> > + unsigned HOST_WIDE_INT mask = (HOST_WIDE_INT_1U << nbits) - 1;
> > + unsigned HOST_WIDE_INT lower_bits = n & mask;
> > + if ((lower_p && lower_bits == mask)
> > + || (greater_p && lower_bits == 0))
> > + {
> > + n >>= nbits;
> > + break;
> > + }
> > + }
> > +
> > + if (narrow_mode_iter < int_mode)
> > + {
> > + poly_int64 offset = BYTES_BIG_ENDIAN
> > + ? 0
> > + : GET_MODE_SIZE (int_mode)
> > + - GET_MODE_SIZE (narrow_mode_iter);
> Go ahead and add some parenthesis here. I'd add one pair around the whole
> RHS of that assignment. The '?' and ':' would line up under the 'B' in that
> case. Similarly add them around the false arm of the ternary. The '-' will
> line up under the 'G'.
Done.
>
> Going to trust you got the little endian adjustment correct here ;-)
Sadly I gave it a try on x64, aarch64, and powerpc64le and in all cases
the resulting instructions were rejected either because the costs were
higher or because the new instructions failed to match. Thus currently I
have tested this only thoroughly on s390x.
>
>
> > /* Compute some predicates to simplify code below. */
> > diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/s390/cmp-mem-const-1.c
> > b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/s390/cmp-mem-const-1.c
> > new file mode 100644
> > index 00000000000..b90c2a8c224
> > --- /dev/null
> > +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/s390/cmp-mem-const-1.c
> > @@ -0,0 +1,99 @@
> > +/* { dg-do compile { target { lp64 } } } */
> > +/* { dg-options "-O1 -march=z13 -mzarch" } */
> > +/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-not {\tclc\t} } } */
> > +
> > +int
> > +ge_8b (unsigned long *x)
> > +{
> > + return *x >= 0x4000000000000000;
> > +}
> Would it be possible to add some debugging output in simplify_compare_const
> so that you could search for that debugging output and make these tests
> generic?
I very much like this idea, i.e., made those tests generic by adding
some debug output.
Beside that I cleaned up the code a bit and will send a V2 shortly.
Cheers,
Stefan
