Re: [PATCH, rtl-optimization]: Fix PR54457, [x32] Fail to combine 64bit index + constant

[Uros Bizjak <ubizjak at gmail dot com>]

On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 11:22 PM, Eric Botcazou <ebotcazou@adacore.com> wrote:
>> I agree (subreg:M (op:N A C) 0) to (op:M (subreg:N (A 0)) C) is
>> a good transformation, but why do we need to handle as special
>> the case where the subreg is itself the operand of a plus or minus?
>> I think it should happen regardless of where the subreg occurs.
>
> Don't we need to restrict this to the low part though?

I have tried this approach with attached patch.  Unfortunately,
although it survived bootstrap without libjava on x86_64, it failed
building libjava with:

/home/uros/gcc-svn/trunk/libjava/classpath/javax/swing/plaf/basic/BasicSliderUI.java:1299:0:
error: insn does not satisfy its constraints:
   }
 ^
(insn 237 398 399 7 (set (reg:SI 1 dx [125])
        (plus:SI (subreg:SI (mult:DI (reg:DI 1 dx [orig:72 D.78627 ] [72])
                    (const_int 2 [0x2])) 0)
            (reg:SI 5 di)))
/home/uros/gcc-svn/trunk/libjava/classpath/javax/swing/plaf/basic/BasicSliderUI.java:1271
240 {*leasi}
     (expr_list:REG_DEAD (reg:DI 5 di)
        (nil)))

Original RTX was (subreg:SI (plus:DI (mult:DI (...) reg:DI))), which
is valid RTX pattern for lea insn, the above is not.

Due to these problems, I think the safer approach is to limit the
transformation to (plus:SI (subreg:SI (plus:DI (...) 0)) RTXes, as was
the case with original patch. This approach would fix a specific
problem where simplify_plus_minus is not able to simplify the combined
RTX at combine time. Please note, that combined RTXes are always
checked for correctness at combine pass.

Uros.

Attachment: s.diff.txt
Description: Text document