This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Sign extension by expr.c convert_move()
- From: Rask Ingemann Lambertsen <rask at sygehus dot dk>
- To: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2007 17:13:38 +0200
- Subject: Sign extension by expr.c convert_move()
In expr.c, convert_move() tries to synthesize sign extension in modes
larger than those directly supported by the target. There are two strategies
for generating the sign bit copies:
1) Compare with 0 and use "slt" if STORE_FLAG_VALUE == -1.
2) Use a signed right shift of one bit less than the operand width.
/* Compute the value to put in each remaining word. */
if (unsignedp)
fill_value = const0_rtx;
else
{
#ifdef HAVE_slt
if (HAVE_slt
&& insn_data[(int) CODE_FOR_slt].operand[0].mode == word_mode
&& STORE_FLAG_VALUE == -1)
{
emit_cmp_insn (lowfrom, const0_rtx, NE, NULL_RTX,
lowpart_mode, 0);
fill_value = gen_reg_rtx (word_mode);
emit_insn (gen_slt (fill_value));
}
else
#endif
{
fill_value
= expand_shift (RSHIFT_EXPR, lowpart_mode, lowfrom,
size_int (GET_MODE_BITSIZE (lowpart_mode) - 1),
NULL_RTX, 0);
fill_value = convert_to_mode (word_mode, fill_value, 1);
}
}
My questions center around the first aproach:
1) Shouldn't it check that the comparison is directly supported by the
target rather than implemented by a library call? If not, how does it know
that it sets the codition codes? Also, several targets don't emit a
comparison instruction until they know how the result is used. Instead, they
save away the comparison operands. That will fail if the comparison is made
by a library call.
2) How does it handle failure of gen_slt?
I've now hit a case (mulvsi3 on ia16) where it tries to sign extend from
SImode to DImode. It's just that cmpsi2 is implemented as a library call and
gen_slt() fails. Result: "Junk extended" arguments are passed to muldi3.
--
Rask Ingemann Lambertsen