[GCC][PATCH][Aarch64] Exploiting BFXIL when OR-ing two AND-operations with appropriate bitmasks

[Sudakshina Das]

Hi Sam

On 13/07/18 17:09, Sam Tebbs wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> This patch adds an optimisation that exploits the AArch64 BFXIL instruction
> when or-ing the result of two bitwise and operations with non-overlapping
> bitmasks (e.g. (a & 0xFFFF0000) | (b & 0x0000FFFF)).
>
> Example:
>
> unsigned long long combine(unsigned long long a, unsigned long long b) {
>  Â  return (a & 0xffffffff00000000ll) | (b & 0x00000000ffffffffll);
> }
>
> void read2(unsigned long long a, unsigned long long b, unsigned long long *c,
>  Â  unsigned long long *d) {
>  Â  *c = combine(a, b); *d = combine(b, a);
> }
>
> When compiled with -O2, read2 would result in:
>
> read2:
>    and   x5, x1, #0xffffffff
>    and   x4, x0, #0xffffffff00000000
>    orr   x4, x4, x5
>    and   x1, x1, #0xffffffff00000000
>    and   x0, x0, #0xffffffff
>    str   x4, [x2]
>    orr   x0, x0, x1
>    str   x0, [x3]
>  Â  ret
>
> But with this patch results in:
>
> read2:
>    mov   x4, x1
>  Â  bfxil x4, x0, 0, 32
>    str   x4, [x2]
>  Â  bfxil x0, x1, 0, 32
>    str   x0, [x3]
>  Â  ret
>    
> Bootstrapped and regtested on aarch64-none-linux-gnu and aarch64-none-elf with no regressions.
>
I am not a maintainer but I have a question about this patch. I may be 
missing something or reading
it wrong. So feel free to point it out:

+(define_insn "*aarch64_bfxil"
+Â  [(set (match_operand:DI 0 "register_operand" "=r")
+Â Â Â  (ior:DI (and:DI (match_operand:DI 1 "register_operand" "r")
+Â Â Â  Â Â Â  Â Â Â  (match_operand 3 "const_int_operand"))
+Â Â Â  Â Â Â  (and:DI (match_operand:DI 2 "register_operand" "0")
+Â Â Â  Â Â Â  Â Â Â  (match_operand 4 "const_int_operand"))))]
+Â  "INTVAL (operands[3]) == ~INTVAL (operands[4])
+Â Â Â  && aarch64_is_left_consecutive (INTVAL (operands[3]))"
+Â  {
+Â Â Â  HOST_WIDE_INT op4 = INTVAL (operands[4]);
+Â Â Â  operands[3] = GEN_INT (64 - ceil_log2 (op4));
+Â Â Â  output_asm_insn ("bfxil\\t%0, %1, 0, %3", operands);

In the BFXIL you are reading %3 LSB bits from operand 1 and putting it 
in the LSBs of %0.
This means that the pattern should be masking the 32-%3 MSB of %0 and
%3 LSB of %1. So shouldn't operand 4 is LEFT_CONSECUTIVE>

Can you please compare a simpler version of the above example you gave to
make sure the generated assembly is equivalent before and after the patch:

void read2(unsigned long long a, unsigned long long b, unsigned long long *c) {
 Â  *c = combine(a, b);
}


 From the above text

read2:
   and   x5, x1, #0xffffffff
   and   x4, x0, #0xffffffff00000000
   orr   x4, x4, x5

read2:
   mov   x4, x1
 Â  bfxil x4, x0, 0, 32

This does not seem equivalent to me.

Thanks
Sudi

+Â Â Â  return "";
+Â  }
+Â  [(set_attr "type" "bfx")]
+)
> gcc/
> 2018-07-11  Sam Tebbs  <sam.tebbs@arm.com>
>
>  Â Â Â Â Â Â Â  * config/aarch64/aarch64.md (*aarch64_bfxil, *aarch64_bfxil_alt):
>  Â Â Â Â Â Â Â  Define.
>  Â Â Â Â Â Â Â  * config/aarch64/aarch64-protos.h (aarch64_is_left_consecutive):
>  Â Â Â Â Â Â Â  Define.
>  Â Â Â Â Â Â Â  * config/aarch64/aarch64.c (aarch64_is_left_consecutive): New function.
>
> gcc/testsuite
> 2018-07-11  Sam Tebbs  <sam.tebbs@arm.com>
>
>  Â Â Â Â Â Â Â  * gcc.target/aarch64/combine_bfxil.c: New file.
>  Â Â Â Â Â Â Â  * gcc.target/aarch64/combine_bfxil_2.c: New file.
>
>
>