[Bug tree-optimization/91384] [9/10/11/12 Regression] Compare with negation is not eliminated
cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org
Mon Feb 28 22:32:58 GMT 2022
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91384
--- Comment #16 from CVS Commits <cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
The master branch has been updated by Roger Sayle <sayle@gcc.gnu.org>:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:28068d1115648adcc08ae57372170f3277915a0d
commit r12-7417-g28068d1115648adcc08ae57372170f3277915a0d
Author: Roger Sayle <roger@nextmovesoftware.com>
Date: Mon Feb 28 22:30:27 2022 +0000
PR tree-optimization/91384: peephole2 to eliminate testl after negl.
This patch is my proposed solution to PR tree-optimization/91384 which is
a missed-optimization/code quality regression on x86_64. The problematic
idiom is "if (r = -a)" which is equivalent to both "r = -a; if (r != 0)"
and alternatively "r = -a; if (a != 0)". In this particular case, on
x86_64, we prefer to use the condition codes from the negation, rather
than require an explicit testl instruction.
Unfortunately, combine can't help, as it doesn't attempt to merge pairs
of instructions that share the same operand(s), only pairs/triples of
instructions where the result of each instruction feeds the next. But
I doubt there's sufficient benefit to attempt this kind of "combination"
(that wouldn't already be caught by the tree-ssa passes).
Fortunately, it's relatively easy to fix this up (addressing the
regression) during peephole2 to eliminate the unnecessary testl in:
movl %edi, %ebx
negl %ebx
testl %edi, %edi
je .L2
2022-02-28 Roger Sayle <roger@nextmovesoftware.com>
gcc/ChangeLog
PR tree-optimization/91384
* config/i386/i386.md (peephole2): Eliminate final testl insn
from the sequence *movsi_internal, *negsi_1, *cmpsi_ccno_1 by
transforming using *negsi_2 for the negation.
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
PR tree-optimization/91384
* gcc.target/i386/pr91384.c: New test case.
More information about the Gcc-bugs
mailing list