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: Redundant sign-extension instructions on RISC-V

> On 30 Aug 2017, at 9:43 PM, Michael Clark <> wrote:
>>> diff --git a/gcc/simplify-rtx.c b/gcc/simplify-rtx.c
>>> index ce632ae..25dd70f 100644
>>> --- a/gcc/simplify-rtx.c
>>> +++ b/gcc/simplify-rtx.c
>>> @@ -1503,6 +1503,10 @@ simplify_unary_operation_1 (enum rtx_code code, machine_mode mode, rtx op)
>>>     /* (sign_extend:M (lshiftrt:N <X> (const_int I))) is better as
>>>        (zero_extend:M (lshiftrt:N <X> (const_int I))) if I is not 0.  */
>>>     if (GET_CODE (op) == LSHIFTRT
>>> +      /* we skip this optimisation if pointers naturally extend signed */
>>> +#endif
>>>        && CONST_INT_P (XEXP (op, 1))
>>>        && XEXP (op, 1) != const0_rtx)
>>>      return simplify_gen_unary (ZERO_EXTEND, mode, op, GET_MODE (op));
>> Is it just me or does this miss a || mode != Pmode || GET_MODE (op) != ptr_mode
>> check?  Note the comment says exactly the opposite as the transform...
>> I’m not even sure why this simplification is correct in the first place?!
> I hope you are not confusing my use of POINTERS_EXTEND_UNSIGNED as a proxy for the property that defines whether sub width operations sign-extend to the full width of the register vs zero extend. Are you taking about our added comment?

Read it as:

riscv.h #define REGISTERS_EXTEND_UNSIGNED false

+      /* we skip this optimisation if registers naturally extend signed */

The comment is the inverse because RISC-V registers naturally extend signed and REGISTERS_EXTEND_UNSIGNED is false. GCC defines unsigned false for RISC-V promotions.

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