A customer reported the following missed opportunities to combine a couple
instructions into a sbfiz.
int sbfiz32 (int x)
{
return x << 29 >> 10;
}
long sbfiz64 (long x)
{
return x << 58 >> 20;
}
This gets converted to the following pattern:
(set (reg:SI 98)
(ashift:SI (sign_extend:SI (reg:HI 0 x0 [ xD.3334 ]))
(const_int 6 [0x6])))
Currently, gcc generates the following:
sbfiz32:
lsl x0, x0, 29
asr x0, x0, 10
ret
sbfiz64:
lsl x0, x0, 58
asr x0, x0, 20
ret
It could generate this instead:
sbfiz32:
sbfiz w0, w0, 19, 3
ret
sbfiz64::
sbfiz x0, x0, 38, 6
ret
The unsigned versions already generate ubfiz for the same code, so the lack of
a sbfiz pattern may have been an oversight.
This particular sbfiz pattern shows up in both CPU2006 (~ 80 hits) and
CPU2017 (~ 280 hits). It's not a lot, but seems beneficial in any case. No
significant performance differences, probably due to the small number of
occurrences or cases outside hot areas.
gcc/ChangeLog:
2018-05-22 Luis Machado <luis.machado@linaro.org>
gcc/
* config/aarch64/aarch64.md (*ashift<mode>_extv_bfiz): New pattern.
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
2018-05-22 Luis Machado <luis.machado@linaro.org>
gcc/testsuite/
* gcc.target/aarch64/lsl_asr_sbfiz.c: New test.
From-SVN: r260546
+2018-05-22 Luis Machado <luis.machado@linaro.org>
+
+ * config/aarch64/aarch64.md (*ashift<mode>_extv_bfiz): New pattern.
+
2018-05-22 Martin Sebor <msebor@redhat.com>
* calls.c (maybe_warn_nonstring_arg): Fix a typo in a comment.
[(set_attr "type" "bfx")]
)
+;; Match sbfiz pattern in a shift left + shift right operation.
+
+(define_insn "*ashift<mode>_extv_bfiz"
+ [(set (match_operand:GPI 0 "register_operand" "=r")
+ (ashift:GPI (sign_extract:GPI (match_operand:GPI 1 "register_operand" "r")
+ (match_operand 2 "aarch64_simd_shift_imm_offset_<mode>" "n")
+ (const_int 0))
+ (match_operand 3 "aarch64_simd_shift_imm_<mode>" "n")))]
+ "IN_RANGE (INTVAL (operands[2]) + INTVAL (operands[3]),
+ 1, GET_MODE_BITSIZE (<MODE>mode) - 1)"
+ "sbfiz\\t%<w>0, %<w>1, %3, %2"
+ [(set_attr "type" "bfx")]
+)
+
;; When the bit position and width of the equivalent extraction add up to 32
;; we can use a W-reg LSL instruction taking advantage of the implicit
;; zero-extension of the X-reg.
+2018-05-22 Luis Machado <luis.machado@linaro.org>
+
+ * gcc.target/aarch64/lsl_asr_sbfiz.c: New test.
+
2018-05-22 Janus Weil <janus@gcc.gnu.org>
PR fortran/85841
--- /dev/null
+/* { dg-do compile } */
+/* { dg-options "-O3" } */
+
+/* Check that a LSL followed by an ASR can be combined into a single SBFIZ
+ instruction. */
+
+/* Using W-reg */
+
+int
+sbfiz32 (int x)
+{
+ return x << 29 >> 10;
+}
+
+/* Using X-reg */
+
+long long
+sbfiz64 (long long x)
+{
+ return x << 58 >> 20;
+}
+
+/* { dg-final { scan-assembler "sbfiz\tw" } } */
+/* { dg-final { scan-assembler "sbfiz\tx" } } */