On Sat, May 30, 2015 at 08:02:20AM -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > On Sat, May 30, 2015 at 10:47:27AM +0930, Alan Modra wrote: > > Huh, that does look like you've destroyed my claim about SImode AND. > > Carefully worded :-)
Yes, I wrote it meaning as in refuted an argument, but it also fits the culprit who broke the AND patterns. :-) Unifying andsi_mask with anddi_mask, and the fact that constraints for const_int see VOIDmode rather than the operand mode is why we get rldicr rather than rlwinm. Easily fixed by separating the si/di patterns, and with a little more work I may even be able to keep them together. There are some other problems too. In and<mode>3 expander I think you want the following since and64_2_operand covers the extra double-rotate cases, not all DImode. - if ((<MODE>mode == DImode && !and64_2_operand (operands[2], <MODE>mode)) - || (<MODE>mode != DImode && !and_operand (operands[2], <MODE>mode))) + if (!and_operand (operands[2], <MODE>mode) + && (<MODE>mode != DImode || !and64_2_operand (operands[2], <MODE>mode))) In and<mode>3_imm_mask_dot and and<mode>3_imm_mask_dot2. Typo? - && any_mask_operand (operands[2], <MODE>mode)" + && !any_mask_operand (operands[2], <MODE>mode)" And that calls into question the !logical_const_operand in the insn predicates for and<mode>3_mask_dot and and<mode>3_mask_dot2. Certain masks satisfy both any_mask_operand and logical_const_operand.. After fixing the typo, neither the andi./andis. patterns nor the rlwinm./rldic[rl]. patterns will be enabled for those masks. Seems to me we should omit !logical_const_operand from those insn predicates. > I don't think it is a good idea to optimise code based on assumptions > of what SImode SETs will do to the dest seen as DImode, without making > those assumptions explicit in the RTL. I agree. Do you intend to get rid of WORD_REGISTER_OPERATIONS, POINTERS_EXTEND_UNSIGNED, PUSH_ROUNDING, SHORT_IMMEDIATES_SIGN_EXTEND, and LOAD_EXTEND_OP? ;-) -- Alan Modra Australia Development Lab, IBM
