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: RFC: [PATCH,ARM] Fix 56110


On 18/02/13 21:47, Tilman Sauerbeck wrote:
Hi,
adding the instruction pattern below fixes my testcase for PR 56110;
however I'm not sure if adding a new pattern is the correct way to go.

I duplicated the andsi3_compare0_scratch pattern, and lifted the
requirement that the 2nd operand be an arm_not_operand. I didn't copy
over the clobber pattern because I don't know what it does ;)

Comments? Can anyone put me in the right direction here? Or take my
humble attempt and massage it into the proper fix?
I can provide a dejagnu testcase if it helps.

No ChangeLog entry because I know this diff won't go anywhere in its
current incarnation.

Thanks,
Tilman

diff --git a/gcc/config/arm/arm.md b/gcc/config/arm/arm.md
index 64888f9..e47f8f7 100644
--- a/gcc/config/arm/arm.md
+++ b/gcc/config/arm/arm.md
@@ -2212,6 +2212,19 @@
     (set_attr "type"  "simple_alu_imm,simple_alu_imm,*")]
  )

+(define_insn "*andsi3_compare0_scratch2"
+  [(set (reg:CC_NOOV CC_REGNUM)
+	(compare:CC_NOOV
+	 (and:SI (match_operand:SI 0 "s_register_operand" "r,r,r")
+		 (match_operand:SI 1 "const_int_operand" "r,r,r"))
+	 (const_int 0)))]
+  "TARGET_32BIT"
+  "@
+   tst%?\\t%0, %1"
+  [(set_attr "conds" "set")
+   (set_attr "type"  "simple_alu_imm,simple_alu_imm,*")]
+)
+
  (define_insn "*zeroextractsi_compare0_scratch"
    [(set (reg:CC_NOOV CC_REGNUM)
  	(compare:CC_NOOV (zero_extract:SI




Sorry, this is not correct. You've got a constraint that requires a const_int_operand, but then specified only a register. This will force the compiler to reload the immediate operand into a register, just negating any saving you've made from getting rid of the compare instruction. Then you've added three identical variants all using two registers of the same class.


However, the question you need to be asking is why the pattern immediately before the one you've added is not matching. The compiler knows how to add clobbers, so I'm surprised that you're finding a new pattern to be necessary.

R.


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