This is the mail archive of the 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: Canonicalization of compares performed as side-effect operations

On 06/08/2019 17:39, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
On Tue, Aug 06, 2019 at 05:22:48PM +0100, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote:
On 06/08/2019 17:17, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
Hi Richard,

On Tue, Aug 06, 2019 at 04:35:04PM +0100, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote:
Arm has an instruction that performs the following operation:

(parallel [
         (set (reg:CC 100 cc)
             (compare:CC (const_int 0 [0])
                 (reg:SI 121)))
         (set (reg:SI 113)
             (neg:SI (reg:SI 121)))

This is simply a reverse subtract from the constant zero, and setting
the condition flags.  It's the low part of a negdi2 expansion.

However, combine will rip this up and try to transform the compare into
'canonical' form, ie

(parallel [
         (set (reg:CC 100 cc)
             (compare:CC (reg:SI 121)
                 (const_int 0 [0])))
         (set (reg:SI 113)
             (neg:SI (reg:SI 121)))

(and obviously swapping the condition on the instruction that uses the
comparison result).

This, of course, doesn't match the behaviour of the instruction and
no-longer matches the pattern in the md file.

It is, however, canonical RTL:

(from md.texi:)

   In addition to algebraic simplifications, following canonicalizations
   are performed:

   @itemize @bullet
   For commutative and comparison operators, a constant is always made the
   second operand.  If a machine only supports a constant as the second
   operand, only patterns that match a constant in the second operand need
   be supplied.

Putting the constant first is non-canonical RTL and will in general not
match any instructions generated by GCC.

So is there a way to describe this instruction within the compiler, or a
way to stop simplify_set from making this sort of simplification?

What's wrong with describing the canonical form in your MD?  You'll need
some reversed condition code thingy, but that's it?

It doesn't describe what the instruction does.  The negation has a side
effect of setting the flags, but the flags are swapped because the
side-effect comparison is swapped from a normal compare.  As I
mentioned, SELECT_CC_MODE doesn't help because it can't see the context
and the comparison just looks 'normal'.

Sure, and we can work on making combine do what you want, but your existing
pattern is *incorrect*.  It needs fixing, and probably before we do other

Why is it incorrect? It's not canonical, sure. But the cannonical form does NOT describe what the instruction does.


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