Re: [PATCH 2/3]rs6000: NFC use sext_hwi to replace ((v&0xf..f)^0x80..0) - 0x80..0
Hi,
Jiufu Guo via Gcc-patches writes:
> Hi Kewen,
>
> "Kewen.Lin" writes:
>> on 2022/12/1 20:16, guojiufu wrote:
>>> On 2022-12-01 15:10, Jiufu Guo via Gcc-patches wrote:
Hi Kewen,
cut...
>>> From 8aa8e1234b6ec34473434951a3a6177253aac770 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
>>> From: Jiufu Guo
>>> Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2022 13:13:37 +0800
>>> Subject: [PATCH 2/2]rs6000: update ((v&0xf..f)^0x80..0) - 0x80..0 with
>>> code: like sext_hwi
>>>
>>
>> May be shorter with "rs6000: Update sign extension computation with
>> sext_hwi"?
> Thanks for your great suggestions!
>>
>>> This patch just replaces the expression like:
>>> ((value & 0xf..f) ^ 0x80..0) - 0x80..0 to better code(e.g. sext_hwi) for
>>> rs6000.cc, rs6000.md and predicates.md (files under rs6000/).
>>
>>
>>> Bootstrap and regtest pass on ppc64{,le}.
>>>
>>
>> Thanks for updating and testing, this patch is OK.
Committed via r13-4556. Thanks again!
BR,
Jeff (Jiufu)
>
> BR,
> Jeff (Jiufu)
>
>>
>> BR,
>> Kewen
Re: [PATCH 2/3]rs6000: NFC use sext_hwi to replace ((v&0xf..f)^0x80..0) - 0x80..0
Hi Kewen,
"Kewen.Lin" writes:
> on 2022/12/1 20:16, guojiufu wrote:
>> On 2022-12-01 15:10, Jiufu Guo via Gcc-patches wrote:
>>> Hi Kewen,
>>>
>>> 在 12/1/22 2:11 PM, Kewen.Lin 写道:
on 2022/12/1 13:35, Jiufu Guo wrote:
> Hi Kewen,
>
> Thanks for your quick and insight review!
>
> 在 12/1/22 1:17 PM, Kewen.Lin 写道:
>> Hi Jeff,
>>
>> on 2022/12/1 09:36, Jiufu Guo wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> This patch just uses sext_hwi to replace the expression like:
>>> ((value & 0xf..f) ^ 0x80..0) - 0x80..0 for rs6000.cc and rs6000.md.
>>>
>>> Bootstrap & regtest pass on ppc64{,le}.
>>> Is this ok for trunk?
>>
>> You didn't say it clearly but I guessed you have grepped in the whole
>> config/rs6000 directory, right? I noticed there are still two places
>> using this kind of expression in function constant_generates_xxspltiw,
>> but I assumed it's intentional as their types are not HOST_WIDE_INT.
>>
>> gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.cc: short sign_h_word = ((h_word & 0x)
>> ^ 0x8000) - 0x8000;
>> gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.cc: int sign_word = ((word & 0x) ^
>> 0x8000) - 0x8000;
>>
>> If so, could you state it clearly in commit log like "with type
>> signed/unsigned HOST_WIDE_INT" or similar?
>>
> Good question!
>
> And as you said sext_hwi is more for "signed/unsigned HOST_WIDE_INT".
> For these two places, it seems sext_hwi is not needed actually!
> And I did see why these expressions are used, may be just an assignment
> is ok.
ah, I see. I agree using the assignment is quite enough. Could you
please also simplify them together? Since they are with the form
"((value & 0xf..f) ^ 0x80..0) - 0x80..0" too, and can be refactored
in a better way. Thanks!
>>>
>>> Sure, I believe just "short sign_h_word = vsx_const->half_words[0];"
>>> should be correct :-), and included in the updated patch.
>>>
>>> Updated patch is attached, bootstrap is on going.
>>
>
> on 2022/12/1 15:10, Jiufu Guo wrote:
>> From 8aa8e1234b6ec34473434951a3a6177253aac770 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
>> From: Jiufu Guo
>> Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2022 13:13:37 +0800
>> Subject: [PATCH 2/2]rs6000: update ((v&0xf..f)^0x80..0) - 0x80..0 with code:
>> like sext_hwi
>>
>
> May be shorter with "rs6000: Update sign extension computation with
> sext_hwi"?
Thanks for your great suggestions!
>
>> This patch just replaces the expression like:
>> ((value & 0xf..f) ^ 0x80..0) - 0x80..0 to better code(e.g. sext_hwi) for
>> rs6000.cc, rs6000.md and predicates.md (files under rs6000/).
>
>
>> Bootstrap and regtest pass on ppc64{,le}.
>>
>
> Thanks for updating and testing, this patch is OK.
BR,
Jeff (Jiufu)
>
> BR,
> Kewen
Re: [PATCH 2/3]rs6000: NFC use sext_hwi to replace ((v&0xf..f)^0x80..0) - 0x80..0
on 2022/12/1 20:16, guojiufu wrote:
> On 2022-12-01 15:10, Jiufu Guo via Gcc-patches wrote:
>> Hi Kewen,
>>
>> 在 12/1/22 2:11 PM, Kewen.Lin 写道:
>>> on 2022/12/1 13:35, Jiufu Guo wrote:
Hi Kewen,
Thanks for your quick and insight review!
在 12/1/22 1:17 PM, Kewen.Lin 写道:
> Hi Jeff,
>
> on 2022/12/1 09:36, Jiufu Guo wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> This patch just uses sext_hwi to replace the expression like:
>> ((value & 0xf..f) ^ 0x80..0) - 0x80..0 for rs6000.cc and rs6000.md.
>>
>> Bootstrap & regtest pass on ppc64{,le}.
>> Is this ok for trunk?
>
> You didn't say it clearly but I guessed you have grepped in the whole
> config/rs6000 directory, right? I noticed there are still two places
> using this kind of expression in function constant_generates_xxspltiw,
> but I assumed it's intentional as their types are not HOST_WIDE_INT.
>
> gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.cc: short sign_h_word = ((h_word & 0x)
> ^ 0x8000) - 0x8000;
> gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.cc: int sign_word = ((word & 0x) ^
> 0x8000) - 0x8000;
>
> If so, could you state it clearly in commit log like "with type
> signed/unsigned HOST_WIDE_INT" or similar?
>
Good question!
And as you said sext_hwi is more for "signed/unsigned HOST_WIDE_INT".
For these two places, it seems sext_hwi is not needed actually!
And I did see why these expressions are used, may be just an assignment
is ok.
>>>
>>> ah, I see. I agree using the assignment is quite enough. Could you
>>> please also simplify them together? Since they are with the form
>>> "((value & 0xf..f) ^ 0x80..0) - 0x80..0" too, and can be refactored
>>> in a better way. Thanks!
>>
>> Sure, I believe just "short sign_h_word = vsx_const->half_words[0];"
>> should be correct :-), and included in the updated patch.
>>
>> Updated patch is attached, bootstrap is on going.
>
on 2022/12/1 15:10, Jiufu Guo wrote:
> From 8aa8e1234b6ec34473434951a3a6177253aac770 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Jiufu Guo
> Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2022 13:13:37 +0800
> Subject: [PATCH 2/2]rs6000: update ((v&0xf..f)^0x80..0) - 0x80..0 with code:
> like sext_hwi
>
May be shorter with "rs6000: Update sign extension computation with sext_hwi"?
> This patch just replaces the expression like:
> ((value & 0xf..f) ^ 0x80..0) - 0x80..0 to better code(e.g. sext_hwi) for
> rs6000.cc, rs6000.md and predicates.md (files under rs6000/).
> Bootstrap and regtest pass on ppc64{,le}.
>
Thanks for updating and testing, this patch is OK.
BR,
Kewen
Re: [PATCH 2/3]rs6000: NFC use sext_hwi to replace ((v&0xf..f)^0x80..0) - 0x80..0
On 2022-12-01 15:10, Jiufu Guo via Gcc-patches wrote:
Hi Kewen,
在 12/1/22 2:11 PM, Kewen.Lin 写道:
on 2022/12/1 13:35, Jiufu Guo wrote:
Hi Kewen,
Thanks for your quick and insight review!
在 12/1/22 1:17 PM, Kewen.Lin 写道:
Hi Jeff,
on 2022/12/1 09:36, Jiufu Guo wrote:
Hi,
This patch just uses sext_hwi to replace the expression like:
((value & 0xf..f) ^ 0x80..0) - 0x80..0 for rs6000.cc and rs6000.md.
Bootstrap & regtest pass on ppc64{,le}.
Is this ok for trunk?
You didn't say it clearly but I guessed you have grepped in the
whole
config/rs6000 directory, right? I noticed there are still two
places
using this kind of expression in function
constant_generates_xxspltiw,
but I assumed it's intentional as their types are not HOST_WIDE_INT.
gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.cc: short sign_h_word = ((h_word &
0x) ^ 0x8000) - 0x8000;
gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.cc: int sign_word = ((word & 0x) ^
0x8000) - 0x8000;
If so, could you state it clearly in commit log like "with type
signed/unsigned HOST_WIDE_INT" or similar?
Good question!
And as you said sext_hwi is more for "signed/unsigned HOST_WIDE_INT".
For these two places, it seems sext_hwi is not needed actually!
And I did see why these expressions are used, may be just an
assignment
is ok.
ah, I see. I agree using the assignment is quite enough. Could you
please also simplify them together? Since they are with the form
"((value & 0xf..f) ^ 0x80..0) - 0x80..0" too, and can be refactored
in a better way. Thanks!
Sure, I believe just "short sign_h_word = vsx_const->half_words[0];"
should be correct :-), and included in the updated patch.
Updated patch is attached, bootstrap is on going.
Bootstrap and regtest pass on ppc64{,le}.
BR,
Jeff (Jiufu)
BR,
Jeff (Jiufu)
BR,
Kewen
Re: [PATCH 2/3]rs6000: NFC use sext_hwi to replace ((v&0xf..f)^0x80..0) - 0x80..0
Hi Kewen,
在 12/1/22 2:11 PM, Kewen.Lin 写道:
> on 2022/12/1 13:35, Jiufu Guo wrote:
>> Hi Kewen,
>>
>> Thanks for your quick and insight review!
>>
>> 在 12/1/22 1:17 PM, Kewen.Lin 写道:
>>> Hi Jeff,
>>>
>>> on 2022/12/1 09:36, Jiufu Guo wrote:
Hi,
This patch just uses sext_hwi to replace the expression like:
((value & 0xf..f) ^ 0x80..0) - 0x80..0 for rs6000.cc and rs6000.md.
Bootstrap & regtest pass on ppc64{,le}.
Is this ok for trunk?
>>>
>>> You didn't say it clearly but I guessed you have grepped in the whole
>>> config/rs6000 directory, right? I noticed there are still two places
>>> using this kind of expression in function constant_generates_xxspltiw,
>>> but I assumed it's intentional as their types are not HOST_WIDE_INT.
>>>
>>> gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.cc: short sign_h_word = ((h_word & 0x) ^
>>> 0x8000) - 0x8000;
>>> gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.cc: int sign_word = ((word & 0x) ^
>>> 0x8000) - 0x8000;
>>>
>>> If so, could you state it clearly in commit log like "with type
>>> signed/unsigned HOST_WIDE_INT" or similar?
>>>
>> Good question!
>>
>> And as you said sext_hwi is more for "signed/unsigned HOST_WIDE_INT".
>> For these two places, it seems sext_hwi is not needed actually!
>> And I did see why these expressions are used, may be just an assignment
>> is ok.
>
> ah, I see. I agree using the assignment is quite enough. Could you
> please also simplify them together? Since they are with the form
> "((value & 0xf..f) ^ 0x80..0) - 0x80..0" too, and can be refactored
> in a better way. Thanks!
Sure, I believe just "short sign_h_word = vsx_const->half_words[0];"
should be correct :-), and included in the updated patch.
Updated patch is attached, bootstrap is on going.
BR,
Jeff (Jiufu)
>
> BR,
> Kewen
> From 8aa8e1234b6ec34473434951a3a6177253aac770 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Jiufu Guo
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2022 13:13:37 +0800
Subject: [PATCH 2/2]rs6000: update ((v&0xf..f)^0x80..0) - 0x80..0 with code:
like sext_hwi
This patch just replaces the expression like:
((value & 0xf..f) ^ 0x80..0) - 0x80..0 to better code(e.g. sext_hwi) for
rs6000.cc, rs6000.md and predicates.md (files under rs6000/).
gcc/ChangeLog:
* config/rs6000/predicates.md: Use sext_hwi.
* config/rs6000/rs6000.cc (num_insns_constant_gpr): Likewise.
(darwin_rs6000_legitimate_lo_sum_const_p): Likewise.
(mem_operand_gpr): Likewise.
(mem_operand_ds_form): Likewise.
(rs6000_legitimize_address): Likewise.
(rs6000_emit_set_const): Likewise.
(rs6000_emit_set_long_const): Likewise.
(print_operand): Likewise.
(constant_generates_xxspltiw): Remove unnecessary expressions.
* config/rs6000/rs6000.md: Use sext_hwi.
---
gcc/config/rs6000/predicates.md | 2 +-
gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.cc | 36 ++---
gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.md | 10 -
3 files changed, 21 insertions(+), 27 deletions(-)
diff --git a/gcc/config/rs6000/predicates.md b/gcc/config/rs6000/predicates.md
index b1fcc69bb60..a1764018545 100644
--- a/gcc/config/rs6000/predicates.md
+++ b/gcc/config/rs6000/predicates.md
@@ -760,7 +760,7 @@ (define_predicate "easy_vector_constant_add_self"
return 0;
elt = BYTES_BIG_ENDIAN ? GET_MODE_NUNITS (mode) - 1 : 0;
val = const_vector_elt_as_int (op, elt);
- val = ((val & 0xff) ^ 0x80) - 0x80;
+ val = sext_hwi (val, 8);
return EASY_VECTOR_15_ADD_SELF (val);
})
diff --git a/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.cc b/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.cc
index 5efe9b22d8b..dff9a0d8835 100644
--- a/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.cc
+++ b/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.cc
@@ -6021,7 +6021,7 @@ num_insns_constant_gpr (HOST_WIDE_INT value)
else if (TARGET_POWERPC64)
{
- HOST_WIDE_INT low = ((value & 0x) ^ 0x8000) - 0x8000;
+ HOST_WIDE_INT low = sext_hwi (value, 32);
HOST_WIDE_INT high = value >> 31;
if (high == 0 || high == -1)
@@ -8456,7 +8456,7 @@ darwin_rs6000_legitimate_lo_sum_const_p (rtx x,
machine_mode mode)
}
/* We only care if the access(es) would cause a change to the high part. */
- offset = ((offset & 0x) ^ 0x8000) - 0x8000;
+ offset = sext_hwi (offset, 16);
return SIGNED_16BIT_OFFSET_EXTRA_P (offset, extra);
}
@@ -8522,7 +8522,7 @@ mem_operand_gpr (rtx op, machine_mode mode)
if (GET_CODE (addr) == LO_SUM)
/* For lo_sum addresses, we must allow any offset except one that
causes a wrap, so test only the low 16 bits. */
-offset = ((offset & 0x) ^ 0x8000) - 0x8000;
+offset = sext_hwi (offset, 16);
return SIGNED_16BIT_OFFSET_EXTRA_P (offset, extra);
}
@@ -8562,7 +8562,7 @@ mem_operand_ds_form (rtx op, machine_mode mode)
if (GET_CODE (addr) == LO_SUM)
/* For lo_sum addresses, we must allow any offset except one that
causes a wrap, so test only the low 16 bits. */
-offset = ((offset & 0x) ^ 0x8000) - 0x8000;
+offset =
Re: [PATCH 2/3]rs6000: NFC use sext_hwi to replace ((v&0xf..f)^0x80..0) - 0x80..0
Hi Kewen,
在 12/1/22 1:30 PM, Kewen.Lin 写道:
> on 2022/12/1 13:17, Kewen.Lin via Gcc-patches wrote:
>> Hi Jeff,
>>
>> on 2022/12/1 09:36, Jiufu Guo wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> This patch just uses sext_hwi to replace the expression like:
>>> ((value & 0xf..f) ^ 0x80..0) - 0x80..0 for rs6000.cc and rs6000.md.
>>>
>>> Bootstrap & regtest pass on ppc64{,le}.
>>> Is this ok for trunk?
>>
>> You didn't say it clearly but I guessed you have grepped in the whole
>> config/rs6000 directory, right? I noticed there are still two places
>> using this kind of expression in function constant_generates_xxspltiw,
>> but I assumed it's intentional as their types are not HOST_WIDE_INT.
>>
>> gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.cc: short sign_h_word = ((h_word & 0x) ^
>> 0x8000) - 0x8000;
>> gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.cc: int sign_word = ((word & 0x) ^
>> 0x8000) - 0x8000;
>>
>
> oh, one place in gcc/config/rs6000/predicates.md got missed.
>
> ./predicates.md-756-{
> ./predicates.md-757- HOST_WIDE_INT val;
> ...
> ./predicates.md-762- val = const_vector_elt_as_int (op, elt);
> ./predicates.md:763: val = ((val & 0xff) ^ 0x80) - 0x80;
> ./predicates.md-764- return EASY_VECTOR_15_ADD_SELF (val);
> ./predicates.md-765-})
>
> Do you mind to have a further check?
Good catch, thanks!
I will update the patch to cover this one. Bootstrap and testing.
I would be better to check all files under rs6000/. I just rechecked
with grep -r "^.*0x8.*-.*0x8" for rs6000. No other place is missed.
BR,
Jeff (Jiufu)
Updated patch as attached(add predicates.md).
>
> Thanks!
>
> KewenFrom 0059e2175cac5353890965ba782ff58743d2f486 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Jiufu Guo
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2022 13:13:37 +0800
Subject: [PATCH 2/2]rs6000: use sext_hwi to replace ((v&0xf..f)^0x80..0) -
0x80..0
This patch just uses sext_hwi to replace the expression like:
((value & 0xf..f) ^ 0x80..0) - 0x80..0 for rs6000.cc, rs6000.md and
predicates.md (all occurance under rs6000/).
gcc/ChangeLog:
* config/rs6000/predicates.md: Use sext_hwi.
* config/rs6000/rs6000.cc (num_insns_constant_gpr): Use sext_hwi.
(darwin_rs6000_legitimate_lo_sum_const_p): Likewise.
(mem_operand_gpr): Likewise.
(mem_operand_ds_form): Likewise.
(rs6000_legitimize_address): Likewise.
(rs6000_emit_set_const): Likewise.
(rs6000_emit_set_long_const): Likewise.
(print_operand): Likewise.
* config/rs6000/rs6000.md: Likewise.
---
gcc/config/rs6000/predicates.md | 2 +-
gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.cc | 30 +-
gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.md | 10 +-
3 files changed, 19 insertions(+), 23 deletions(-)
diff --git a/gcc/config/rs6000/predicates.md b/gcc/config/rs6000/predicates.md
index b1fcc69bb60..a1764018545 100644
--- a/gcc/config/rs6000/predicates.md
+++ b/gcc/config/rs6000/predicates.md
@@ -760,7 +760,7 @@ (define_predicate "easy_vector_constant_add_self"
return 0;
elt = BYTES_BIG_ENDIAN ? GET_MODE_NUNITS (mode) - 1 : 0;
val = const_vector_elt_as_int (op, elt);
- val = ((val & 0xff) ^ 0x80) - 0x80;
+ val = sext_hwi (val, 8);
return EASY_VECTOR_15_ADD_SELF (val);
})
diff --git a/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.cc b/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.cc
index 5efe9b22d8b..718072cc9a1 100644
--- a/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.cc
+++ b/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.cc
@@ -6021,7 +6021,7 @@ num_insns_constant_gpr (HOST_WIDE_INT value)
else if (TARGET_POWERPC64)
{
- HOST_WIDE_INT low = ((value & 0x) ^ 0x8000) - 0x8000;
+ HOST_WIDE_INT low = sext_hwi (value, 32);
HOST_WIDE_INT high = value >> 31;
if (high == 0 || high == -1)
@@ -8456,7 +8456,7 @@ darwin_rs6000_legitimate_lo_sum_const_p (rtx x,
machine_mode mode)
}
/* We only care if the access(es) would cause a change to the high part. */
- offset = ((offset & 0x) ^ 0x8000) - 0x8000;
+ offset = sext_hwi (offset, 16);
return SIGNED_16BIT_OFFSET_EXTRA_P (offset, extra);
}
@@ -8522,7 +8522,7 @@ mem_operand_gpr (rtx op, machine_mode mode)
if (GET_CODE (addr) == LO_SUM)
/* For lo_sum addresses, we must allow any offset except one that
causes a wrap, so test only the low 16 bits. */
-offset = ((offset & 0x) ^ 0x8000) - 0x8000;
+offset = sext_hwi (offset, 16);
return SIGNED_16BIT_OFFSET_EXTRA_P (offset, extra);
}
@@ -8562,7 +8562,7 @@ mem_operand_ds_form (rtx op, machine_mode mode)
if (GET_CODE (addr) == LO_SUM)
/* For lo_sum addresses, we must allow any offset except one that
causes a wrap, so test only the low 16 bits. */
-offset = ((offset & 0x) ^ 0x8000) - 0x8000;
+offset = sext_hwi (offset, 16);
return SIGNED_16BIT_OFFSET_EXTRA_P (offset, extra);
}
@@ -9136,7 +9136,7 @@ rs6000_legitimize_address (rtx x, rtx oldx
ATTRIBUTE_UNUSED,
{
HOST_WIDE_INT high_int, low_int;
rtx sum;
- low_int = ((INTVAL (XEXP (x, 1)) & 0x) ^ 0x8000) - 0x8000;
+
Re: [PATCH 2/3]rs6000: NFC use sext_hwi to replace ((v&0xf..f)^0x80..0) - 0x80..0
on 2022/12/1 13:35, Jiufu Guo wrote:
> Hi Kewen,
>
> Thanks for your quick and insight review!
>
> 在 12/1/22 1:17 PM, Kewen.Lin 写道:
>> Hi Jeff,
>>
>> on 2022/12/1 09:36, Jiufu Guo wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> This patch just uses sext_hwi to replace the expression like:
>>> ((value & 0xf..f) ^ 0x80..0) - 0x80..0 for rs6000.cc and rs6000.md.
>>>
>>> Bootstrap & regtest pass on ppc64{,le}.
>>> Is this ok for trunk?
>>
>> You didn't say it clearly but I guessed you have grepped in the whole
>> config/rs6000 directory, right? I noticed there are still two places
>> using this kind of expression in function constant_generates_xxspltiw,
>> but I assumed it's intentional as their types are not HOST_WIDE_INT.
>>
>> gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.cc: short sign_h_word = ((h_word & 0x) ^
>> 0x8000) - 0x8000;
>> gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.cc: int sign_word = ((word & 0x) ^
>> 0x8000) - 0x8000;
>>
>> If so, could you state it clearly in commit log like "with type
>> signed/unsigned HOST_WIDE_INT" or similar?
>>
> Good question!
>
> And as you said sext_hwi is more for "signed/unsigned HOST_WIDE_INT".
> For these two places, it seems sext_hwi is not needed actually!
> And I did see why these expressions are used, may be just an assignment
> is ok.
ah, I see. I agree using the assignment is quite enough. Could you
please also simplify them together? Since they are with the form
"((value & 0xf..f) ^ 0x80..0) - 0x80..0" too, and can be refactored
in a better way. Thanks!
BR,
Kewen
Re: [PATCH 2/3]rs6000: NFC use sext_hwi to replace ((v&0xf..f)^0x80..0) - 0x80..0
Hi Kewen,
Thanks for your quick and insight review!
在 12/1/22 1:17 PM, Kewen.Lin 写道:
> Hi Jeff,
>
> on 2022/12/1 09:36, Jiufu Guo wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> This patch just uses sext_hwi to replace the expression like:
>> ((value & 0xf..f) ^ 0x80..0) - 0x80..0 for rs6000.cc and rs6000.md.
>>
>> Bootstrap & regtest pass on ppc64{,le}.
>> Is this ok for trunk?
>
> You didn't say it clearly but I guessed you have grepped in the whole
> config/rs6000 directory, right? I noticed there are still two places
> using this kind of expression in function constant_generates_xxspltiw,
> but I assumed it's intentional as their types are not HOST_WIDE_INT.
>
> gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.cc: short sign_h_word = ((h_word & 0x) ^
> 0x8000) - 0x8000;
> gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.cc: int sign_word = ((word & 0x) ^
> 0x8000) - 0x8000;
>
> If so, could you state it clearly in commit log like "with type
> signed/unsigned HOST_WIDE_INT" or similar?
>
Good question!
And as you said sext_hwi is more for "signed/unsigned HOST_WIDE_INT".
For these two places, it seems sext_hwi is not needed actually!
And I did see why these expressions are used, may be just an assignment
is ok.
So, this patch does not cover these two places.
BR,
Jeff (Jiufu)
> This patch is OK once the above question gets confirmed, thanks!
>
> BR,
> Kewen
>
>>
>> BR,
>> Jeff (Jiufu)
>>
>> gcc/ChangeLog:
>>
>> * config/rs6000/rs6000.cc (num_insns_constant_gpr): Use sext_hwi.
>> (darwin_rs6000_legitimate_lo_sum_const_p): Likewise.
>> (mem_operand_gpr): Likewise.
>> (mem_operand_ds_form): Likewise.
>> (rs6000_legitimize_address): Likewise.
>> (rs6000_emit_set_const): Likewise.
>> (rs6000_emit_set_long_const): Likewise.
>> (print_operand): Likewise.
>> * config/rs6000/rs6000.md: Likewise.
>>
>> ---
>> gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.cc | 30 +-
>> gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.md | 10 +-
>> 2 files changed, 18 insertions(+), 22 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.cc b/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.cc
>> index 5efe9b22d8b..718072cc9a1 100644
>> --- a/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.cc
>> +++ b/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.cc
>> @@ -6021,7 +6021,7 @@ num_insns_constant_gpr (HOST_WIDE_INT value)
>>
>>else if (TARGET_POWERPC64)
>> {
>> - HOST_WIDE_INT low = ((value & 0x) ^ 0x8000) - 0x8000;
>> + HOST_WIDE_INT low = sext_hwi (value, 32);
>>HOST_WIDE_INT high = value >> 31;
>>
>>if (high == 0 || high == -1)
>> @@ -8456,7 +8456,7 @@ darwin_rs6000_legitimate_lo_sum_const_p (rtx x,
>> machine_mode mode)
>> }
>>
>>/* We only care if the access(es) would cause a change to the high part.
>> */
>> - offset = ((offset & 0x) ^ 0x8000) - 0x8000;
>> + offset = sext_hwi (offset, 16);
>>return SIGNED_16BIT_OFFSET_EXTRA_P (offset, extra);
>> }
>>
>> @@ -8522,7 +8522,7 @@ mem_operand_gpr (rtx op, machine_mode mode)
>>if (GET_CODE (addr) == LO_SUM)
>> /* For lo_sum addresses, we must allow any offset except one that
>> causes a wrap, so test only the low 16 bits. */
>> -offset = ((offset & 0x) ^ 0x8000) - 0x8000;
>> +offset = sext_hwi (offset, 16);
>>
>>return SIGNED_16BIT_OFFSET_EXTRA_P (offset, extra);
>> }
>> @@ -8562,7 +8562,7 @@ mem_operand_ds_form (rtx op, machine_mode mode)
>>if (GET_CODE (addr) == LO_SUM)
>> /* For lo_sum addresses, we must allow any offset except one that
>> causes a wrap, so test only the low 16 bits. */
>> -offset = ((offset & 0x) ^ 0x8000) - 0x8000;
>> +offset = sext_hwi (offset, 16);
>>
>>return SIGNED_16BIT_OFFSET_EXTRA_P (offset, extra);
>> }
>> @@ -9136,7 +9136,7 @@ rs6000_legitimize_address (rtx x, rtx oldx
>> ATTRIBUTE_UNUSED,
>> {
>>HOST_WIDE_INT high_int, low_int;
>>rtx sum;
>> - low_int = ((INTVAL (XEXP (x, 1)) & 0x) ^ 0x8000) - 0x8000;
>> + low_int = sext_hwi (INTVAL (XEXP (x, 1)), 16);
>>if (low_int >= 0x8000 - extra)
>> low_int = 0;
>>high_int = INTVAL (XEXP (x, 1)) - low_int;
>> @@ -10203,7 +10203,7 @@ rs6000_emit_set_const (rtx dest, rtx source)
>>lo = operand_subword_force (dest, WORDS_BIG_ENDIAN != 0,
>>DImode);
>>emit_move_insn (hi, GEN_INT (c >> 32));
>> - c = ((c & 0x) ^ 0x8000) - 0x8000;
>> + c = sext_hwi (c, 32);
>>emit_move_insn (lo, GEN_INT (c));
>> }
>>else
>> @@ -10242,7 +10242,7 @@ rs6000_emit_set_long_const (rtx dest, HOST_WIDE_INT
>> c)
>>
>>if ((ud4 == 0x && ud3 == 0x && ud2 == 0x && (ud1 & 0x8000))
>>|| (ud4 == 0 && ud3 == 0 && ud2 == 0 && ! (ud1 & 0x8000)))
>> -emit_move_insn (dest, GEN_INT ((ud1 ^ 0x8000) - 0x8000));
>> +emit_move_insn (dest, GEN_INT (sext_hwi (ud1, 16)));
>>
>>else if ((ud4 == 0x && ud3 == 0x && (ud2 & 0x8000))
>> || (ud4 == 0 && ud3 == 0 && ! (ud2 & 0x8000)))
Re: [PATCH 2/3]rs6000: NFC use sext_hwi to replace ((v&0xf..f)^0x80..0) - 0x80..0
on 2022/12/1 13:17, Kewen.Lin via Gcc-patches wrote:
> Hi Jeff,
>
> on 2022/12/1 09:36, Jiufu Guo wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> This patch just uses sext_hwi to replace the expression like:
>> ((value & 0xf..f) ^ 0x80..0) - 0x80..0 for rs6000.cc and rs6000.md.
>>
>> Bootstrap & regtest pass on ppc64{,le}.
>> Is this ok for trunk?
>
> You didn't say it clearly but I guessed you have grepped in the whole
> config/rs6000 directory, right? I noticed there are still two places
> using this kind of expression in function constant_generates_xxspltiw,
> but I assumed it's intentional as their types are not HOST_WIDE_INT.
>
> gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.cc: short sign_h_word = ((h_word & 0x) ^
> 0x8000) - 0x8000;
> gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.cc: int sign_word = ((word & 0x) ^
> 0x8000) - 0x8000;
>
oh, one place in gcc/config/rs6000/predicates.md got missed.
./predicates.md-756-{
./predicates.md-757- HOST_WIDE_INT val;
...
./predicates.md-762- val = const_vector_elt_as_int (op, elt);
./predicates.md:763: val = ((val & 0xff) ^ 0x80) - 0x80;
./predicates.md-764- return EASY_VECTOR_15_ADD_SELF (val);
./predicates.md-765-})
Do you mind to have a further check?
Thanks!
Kewen
Re: [PATCH 2/3]rs6000: NFC use sext_hwi to replace ((v&0xf..f)^0x80..0) - 0x80..0
Hi Jeff,
on 2022/12/1 09:36, Jiufu Guo wrote:
> Hi,
>
> This patch just uses sext_hwi to replace the expression like:
> ((value & 0xf..f) ^ 0x80..0) - 0x80..0 for rs6000.cc and rs6000.md.
>
> Bootstrap & regtest pass on ppc64{,le}.
> Is this ok for trunk?
You didn't say it clearly but I guessed you have grepped in the whole
config/rs6000 directory, right? I noticed there are still two places
using this kind of expression in function constant_generates_xxspltiw,
but I assumed it's intentional as their types are not HOST_WIDE_INT.
gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.cc: short sign_h_word = ((h_word & 0x) ^
0x8000) - 0x8000;
gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.cc: int sign_word = ((word & 0x) ^
0x8000) - 0x8000;
If so, could you state it clearly in commit log like "with type
signed/unsigned HOST_WIDE_INT" or similar?
This patch is OK once the above question gets confirmed, thanks!
BR,
Kewen
>
> BR,
> Jeff (Jiufu)
>
> gcc/ChangeLog:
>
> * config/rs6000/rs6000.cc (num_insns_constant_gpr): Use sext_hwi.
> (darwin_rs6000_legitimate_lo_sum_const_p): Likewise.
> (mem_operand_gpr): Likewise.
> (mem_operand_ds_form): Likewise.
> (rs6000_legitimize_address): Likewise.
> (rs6000_emit_set_const): Likewise.
> (rs6000_emit_set_long_const): Likewise.
> (print_operand): Likewise.
> * config/rs6000/rs6000.md: Likewise.
>
> ---
> gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.cc | 30 +-
> gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.md | 10 +-
> 2 files changed, 18 insertions(+), 22 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.cc b/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.cc
> index 5efe9b22d8b..718072cc9a1 100644
> --- a/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.cc
> +++ b/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.cc
> @@ -6021,7 +6021,7 @@ num_insns_constant_gpr (HOST_WIDE_INT value)
>
>else if (TARGET_POWERPC64)
> {
> - HOST_WIDE_INT low = ((value & 0x) ^ 0x8000) - 0x8000;
> + HOST_WIDE_INT low = sext_hwi (value, 32);
>HOST_WIDE_INT high = value >> 31;
>
>if (high == 0 || high == -1)
> @@ -8456,7 +8456,7 @@ darwin_rs6000_legitimate_lo_sum_const_p (rtx x,
> machine_mode mode)
> }
>
>/* We only care if the access(es) would cause a change to the high part.
> */
> - offset = ((offset & 0x) ^ 0x8000) - 0x8000;
> + offset = sext_hwi (offset, 16);
>return SIGNED_16BIT_OFFSET_EXTRA_P (offset, extra);
> }
>
> @@ -8522,7 +8522,7 @@ mem_operand_gpr (rtx op, machine_mode mode)
>if (GET_CODE (addr) == LO_SUM)
> /* For lo_sum addresses, we must allow any offset except one that
> causes a wrap, so test only the low 16 bits. */
> -offset = ((offset & 0x) ^ 0x8000) - 0x8000;
> +offset = sext_hwi (offset, 16);
>
>return SIGNED_16BIT_OFFSET_EXTRA_P (offset, extra);
> }
> @@ -8562,7 +8562,7 @@ mem_operand_ds_form (rtx op, machine_mode mode)
>if (GET_CODE (addr) == LO_SUM)
> /* For lo_sum addresses, we must allow any offset except one that
> causes a wrap, so test only the low 16 bits. */
> -offset = ((offset & 0x) ^ 0x8000) - 0x8000;
> +offset = sext_hwi (offset, 16);
>
>return SIGNED_16BIT_OFFSET_EXTRA_P (offset, extra);
> }
> @@ -9136,7 +9136,7 @@ rs6000_legitimize_address (rtx x, rtx oldx
> ATTRIBUTE_UNUSED,
> {
>HOST_WIDE_INT high_int, low_int;
>rtx sum;
> - low_int = ((INTVAL (XEXP (x, 1)) & 0x) ^ 0x8000) - 0x8000;
> + low_int = sext_hwi (INTVAL (XEXP (x, 1)), 16);
>if (low_int >= 0x8000 - extra)
> low_int = 0;
>high_int = INTVAL (XEXP (x, 1)) - low_int;
> @@ -10203,7 +10203,7 @@ rs6000_emit_set_const (rtx dest, rtx source)
> lo = operand_subword_force (dest, WORDS_BIG_ENDIAN != 0,
> DImode);
> emit_move_insn (hi, GEN_INT (c >> 32));
> - c = ((c & 0x) ^ 0x8000) - 0x8000;
> + c = sext_hwi (c, 32);
> emit_move_insn (lo, GEN_INT (c));
> }
>else
> @@ -10242,7 +10242,7 @@ rs6000_emit_set_long_const (rtx dest, HOST_WIDE_INT c)
>
>if ((ud4 == 0x && ud3 == 0x && ud2 == 0x && (ud1 & 0x8000))
>|| (ud4 == 0 && ud3 == 0 && ud2 == 0 && ! (ud1 & 0x8000)))
> -emit_move_insn (dest, GEN_INT ((ud1 ^ 0x8000) - 0x8000));
> +emit_move_insn (dest, GEN_INT (sext_hwi (ud1, 16)));
>
>else if ((ud4 == 0x && ud3 == 0x && (ud2 & 0x8000))
> || (ud4 == 0 && ud3 == 0 && ! (ud2 & 0x8000)))
> @@ -10250,7 +10250,7 @@ rs6000_emit_set_long_const (rtx dest, HOST_WIDE_INT c)
>temp = !can_create_pseudo_p () ? dest : gen_reg_rtx (DImode);
>
>emit_move_insn (ud1 != 0 ? copy_rtx (temp) : dest,
> - GEN_INT (((ud2 << 16) ^ 0x8000) - 0x8000));
> + GEN_INT (sext_hwi (ud2 << 16, 32)));
>if (ud1 != 0)
> emit_move_insn (dest,
> gen_rtx_IOR (DImode, copy_rtx (temp),
> @@ -10261,8 +10261,7 @@
[PATCH 2/3]rs6000: NFC use sext_hwi to replace ((v&0xf..f)^0x80..0) - 0x80..0
Hi,
This patch just uses sext_hwi to replace the expression like:
((value & 0xf..f) ^ 0x80..0) - 0x80..0 for rs6000.cc and rs6000.md.
Bootstrap & regtest pass on ppc64{,le}.
Is this ok for trunk?
BR,
Jeff (Jiufu)
gcc/ChangeLog:
* config/rs6000/rs6000.cc (num_insns_constant_gpr): Use sext_hwi.
(darwin_rs6000_legitimate_lo_sum_const_p): Likewise.
(mem_operand_gpr): Likewise.
(mem_operand_ds_form): Likewise.
(rs6000_legitimize_address): Likewise.
(rs6000_emit_set_const): Likewise.
(rs6000_emit_set_long_const): Likewise.
(print_operand): Likewise.
* config/rs6000/rs6000.md: Likewise.
---
gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.cc | 30 +-
gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.md | 10 +-
2 files changed, 18 insertions(+), 22 deletions(-)
diff --git a/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.cc b/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.cc
index 5efe9b22d8b..718072cc9a1 100644
--- a/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.cc
+++ b/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.cc
@@ -6021,7 +6021,7 @@ num_insns_constant_gpr (HOST_WIDE_INT value)
else if (TARGET_POWERPC64)
{
- HOST_WIDE_INT low = ((value & 0x) ^ 0x8000) - 0x8000;
+ HOST_WIDE_INT low = sext_hwi (value, 32);
HOST_WIDE_INT high = value >> 31;
if (high == 0 || high == -1)
@@ -8456,7 +8456,7 @@ darwin_rs6000_legitimate_lo_sum_const_p (rtx x,
machine_mode mode)
}
/* We only care if the access(es) would cause a change to the high part. */
- offset = ((offset & 0x) ^ 0x8000) - 0x8000;
+ offset = sext_hwi (offset, 16);
return SIGNED_16BIT_OFFSET_EXTRA_P (offset, extra);
}
@@ -8522,7 +8522,7 @@ mem_operand_gpr (rtx op, machine_mode mode)
if (GET_CODE (addr) == LO_SUM)
/* For lo_sum addresses, we must allow any offset except one that
causes a wrap, so test only the low 16 bits. */
-offset = ((offset & 0x) ^ 0x8000) - 0x8000;
+offset = sext_hwi (offset, 16);
return SIGNED_16BIT_OFFSET_EXTRA_P (offset, extra);
}
@@ -8562,7 +8562,7 @@ mem_operand_ds_form (rtx op, machine_mode mode)
if (GET_CODE (addr) == LO_SUM)
/* For lo_sum addresses, we must allow any offset except one that
causes a wrap, so test only the low 16 bits. */
-offset = ((offset & 0x) ^ 0x8000) - 0x8000;
+offset = sext_hwi (offset, 16);
return SIGNED_16BIT_OFFSET_EXTRA_P (offset, extra);
}
@@ -9136,7 +9136,7 @@ rs6000_legitimize_address (rtx x, rtx oldx
ATTRIBUTE_UNUSED,
{
HOST_WIDE_INT high_int, low_int;
rtx sum;
- low_int = ((INTVAL (XEXP (x, 1)) & 0x) ^ 0x8000) - 0x8000;
+ low_int = sext_hwi (INTVAL (XEXP (x, 1)), 16);
if (low_int >= 0x8000 - extra)
low_int = 0;
high_int = INTVAL (XEXP (x, 1)) - low_int;
@@ -10203,7 +10203,7 @@ rs6000_emit_set_const (rtx dest, rtx source)
lo = operand_subword_force (dest, WORDS_BIG_ENDIAN != 0,
DImode);
emit_move_insn (hi, GEN_INT (c >> 32));
- c = ((c & 0x) ^ 0x8000) - 0x8000;
+ c = sext_hwi (c, 32);
emit_move_insn (lo, GEN_INT (c));
}
else
@@ -10242,7 +10242,7 @@ rs6000_emit_set_long_const (rtx dest, HOST_WIDE_INT c)
if ((ud4 == 0x && ud3 == 0x && ud2 == 0x && (ud1 & 0x8000))
|| (ud4 == 0 && ud3 == 0 && ud2 == 0 && ! (ud1 & 0x8000)))
-emit_move_insn (dest, GEN_INT ((ud1 ^ 0x8000) - 0x8000));
+emit_move_insn (dest, GEN_INT (sext_hwi (ud1, 16)));
else if ((ud4 == 0x && ud3 == 0x && (ud2 & 0x8000))
|| (ud4 == 0 && ud3 == 0 && ! (ud2 & 0x8000)))
@@ -10250,7 +10250,7 @@ rs6000_emit_set_long_const (rtx dest, HOST_WIDE_INT c)
temp = !can_create_pseudo_p () ? dest : gen_reg_rtx (DImode);
emit_move_insn (ud1 != 0 ? copy_rtx (temp) : dest,
- GEN_INT (((ud2 << 16) ^ 0x8000) - 0x8000));
+ GEN_INT (sext_hwi (ud2 << 16, 32)));
if (ud1 != 0)
emit_move_insn (dest,
gen_rtx_IOR (DImode, copy_rtx (temp),
@@ -10261,8 +10261,7 @@ rs6000_emit_set_long_const (rtx dest, HOST_WIDE_INT c)
temp = !can_create_pseudo_p () ? dest : gen_reg_rtx (DImode);
gcc_assert (ud2 & 0x8000);
- emit_move_insn (copy_rtx (temp),
- GEN_INT (((ud2 << 16) ^ 0x8000) - 0x8000));
+ emit_move_insn (copy_rtx (temp), GEN_INT (sext_hwi (ud2 << 16, 32)));
if (ud1 != 0)
emit_move_insn (copy_rtx (temp),
gen_rtx_IOR (DImode, copy_rtx (temp),
@@ -10273,7 +10272,7 @@ rs6000_emit_set_long_const (rtx dest, HOST_WIDE_INT c)
{
temp = !can_create_pseudo_p () ? dest : gen_reg_rtx (DImode);
HOST_WIDE_INT num = (ud2 << 16) | ud1;
- rs6000_emit_set_long_const (temp, (num ^ 0x8000) - 0x8000);
+ rs6000_emit_set_long_const (temp, sext_hwi (num, 32));
rtx one = gen_rtx_AND (DImode, temp, GEN_INT
