This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: [PATCH] Optimize (X >> N) {>,>=,<,<=} C in the combiner (PR tree-optimization/20517)


> Like this?  The reason I haven't done this initially was that
> a) I was afraid of LTGT and UN* codes, but those shouldn't be present for
>    MODE_INT op0 which is checked earlier

I thought of this...

> b) I want to prefer C << N over ((C + 1) << N) - 1 when possible (when low
>    bits are known to be zero), because the former might be a cheaper
>    constant and I didn't want to call nonzero_bits twice.  In the patch
>    below that is handled by adding the low_bits temporary.

but not of that. :-)

> 2010-09-10  Jakub Jelinek  <jakub@redhat.com>
>
> 	PR rtl-optimization/45617
> 	* combine.c (simplify_comparison): Optimize (X >> N) {>,>=,<,<=} C
> 	even if low N bits of X aren't known to be zero.
>
> 	* gcc.target/i386/pr45617.c: New test.

OK, modulo:

+	      HOST_WIDE_INT low_bits
+		= (nonzero_bits (XEXP (op0, 0), mode)
+		   & (((HOST_WIDE_INT) 1 << INTVAL (XEXP (op0, 1))) - 1));

unsigned HOST_WIDE_INT

+		  if (low_bits != 0
+		      && (code == GT || code == GTU || code == LE || code == LEU))

long line

Thanks.

-- 
Eric Botcazou


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]