[Patch] [Aarch64] PR rtl-optimization/87763 - this patch fixes gcc.target/aarch64/lsl_asr_sbfiz.c

Richard Earnshaw (lists) Richard.Earnshaw@arm.com
Fri Apr 26 14:57:00 GMT 2019


On 26/04/2019 15:13, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 4/16/19 10:29 AM, Steve Ellcey wrote:
>> Re-ping.  I know there are discussions about bigger changes to fix the
>> various failures listed in PR rtl-optimization/87763 but this patch
>> at least fixes one of them (gcc.target/aarch64/lsl_asr_sbfiz.c).
>>
>> Steve Ellcey
>> sellcey@marvell.com
> So here's my take on fixing the lsl_asr_sbfix.c regression.
> 
> As I mentioned earlier the problem is the aarch64 is using the old way
> of describing bitfield extractions (extv, extzv).  Specifically it
> defined a single expander that operated on the natural word mode (DImode).
> 
> This forces the input operand to be used in DImode as well.  So we get
> those annoying subregs in the expressions that combine generates.  But
> there's a better way :-)
> 
> The new way to handle this stuff is to define expanders for supported
> modes (SI and DI for aarch64).  Interestingly enough the aarch64 port
> already does this for bitfield insertions via insv.
> 
> So I made the obvious changes to the extv/extzv expander.  That fixes
> the lsl_asr_sbfiz regression.  But doesn't bootstrap.  The availability
> of the new expander makes extract_bit_field_using_extv want to extract a
> field from an HFmode object and shove it into an SImode.  That runs
> afoul of checks in validate_subreg (as it should).  We shouldn't be
> using subregs to change the size of a floating point object, so that
> needs to be filtered out in extract_bit_field_using_extv.
> 
> That fixes the bootstrap issue.  But regression testing trips over
> ashtidisi.c.  That can be easily fixed by allowing zero/sign extractions
> which change size.  ie:
> 
> (set (reg:DI) (sign_extract:DI (reg:SI) ...)))
> 
> Which seems like a reasonable thing to handle.
> 
> So here's what I've got.  I've bootstrapped and regression tested on
> aarch64.  It's also bootstrapped on aarch64_be for good measure.
> 
> OK (from aarch64 maintainers) for the gcc-9 branch and trunk?  Or we
> could just address on the trunk for gcc-10.  I don't have strong
> preferences either way.
> 
> Jeff
> 
> ps.  Time to return insv regressions and address Segher's comments :-)
> 
> 
> 
> P
> 
> 	* aarch64.md (extv, extzv expander): Generalize so that it works
> 	for both SImode and DImode.
> 	(extv_3264, extzv_3264): New pattern to handle extractions with
> 	size change between the input and output operand.
> 	* expmed.c (extract_bitfield_using_extv): Do not allow changing
> 	sizes of floating point objects using SUBREGs.
> 
> diff --git a/gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64.md b/gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64.md
> index 5a1894063a1..13e2bca05a1 100644
> --- a/gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64.md
> +++ b/gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64.md
> @@ -5390,16 +5390,16 @@
>  ;; Bitfields
>  ;; -------------------------------------------------------------------
>  
> -(define_expand "<optab>"
> -  [(set (match_operand:DI 0 "register_operand" "=r")
> -	(ANY_EXTRACT:DI (match_operand:DI 1 "register_operand")
> +(define_expand "<optab><mode>"
> +  [(set (match_operand:GPI 0 "register_operand" "=r")
> +	(ANY_EXTRACT:GPI (match_operand:GPI 1 "register_operand")
>  			(match_operand 2
> -			  "aarch64_simd_shift_imm_offset_di")
> -			(match_operand 3 "aarch64_simd_shift_imm_di")))]
> +			  "aarch64_simd_shift_imm_offset_<mode>")
> +			(match_operand 3 "aarch64_simd_shift_imm_<mode>")))]
>    ""
>    {
>      if (!IN_RANGE (INTVAL (operands[2]) + INTVAL (operands[3]),
> -		   1, GET_MODE_BITSIZE (DImode) - 1))
> +		   1, GET_MODE_BITSIZE (<MODE>mode) - 1))
>       FAIL;
>    }
>  )
> @@ -5418,6 +5418,21 @@
>    [(set_attr "type" "bfx")]
>  )
>  
> +;; Similar to the previous pattern, but 32->64 extraction
> +(define_insn "*<optab>_3264"
> +  [(set (match_operand:DI 0 "register_operand" "=r")
> +	(ANY_EXTRACT:DI (match_operand:SI 1 "register_operand" "r")

So is that valid RTL (DI extract of SI value)?  Why wouldn't that just
use a paradoxical subreg to widen the register being extracted?

R.


> +			 (match_operand 2
> +			   "aarch64_simd_shift_imm_offset_si" "n")
> +			 (match_operand 3
> +			   "aarch64_simd_shift_imm_si" "n")))]
> +  "IN_RANGE (INTVAL (operands[2]) + INTVAL (operands[3]),
> +	     1, GET_MODE_BITSIZE (DImode) - 1)"
> +  "<su>bfx\\t%x0, %x1, %3, %2"
> +  [(set_attr "type" "bfx")]
> +)
> +
> +
>  ;; When the bit position and width add up to 32 we can use a W-reg LSR
>  ;; instruction taking advantage of the implicit zero-extension of the X-reg.
>  (define_split
> diff --git a/gcc/expmed.c b/gcc/expmed.c
> index d7f8e9a5d76..ce8f9595b9a 100644
> --- a/gcc/expmed.c
> +++ b/gcc/expmed.c
> @@ -1544,7 +1544,14 @@ extract_bit_field_using_extv (const extraction_insn *extv, rtx op0,
>  	 mode.  Instead, create a temporary and use convert_move to set
>  	 the target.  */
>        if (REG_P (target)
> -	  && TRULY_NOOP_TRUNCATION_MODES_P (GET_MODE (target), ext_mode))
> +	  && TRULY_NOOP_TRUNCATION_MODES_P (GET_MODE (target), ext_mode)
> +	  /* We can't change the size of float mode subregs (see
> +	     validate_subreg).  So if either mode is a floating point
> +	     mode and the sizes are not equal, then reject doing this
> +	     via gen_lowpart.  */
> +	  && !((FLOAT_MODE_P (GET_MODE (target)) || FLOAT_MODE_P (ext_mode))
> +	       && maybe_ne (GET_MODE_BITSIZE (GET_MODE (target)),
> +			    GET_MODE_BITSIZE (ext_mode))))
>  	{
>  	  target = gen_lowpart (ext_mode, target);
>  	  if (partial_subreg_p (GET_MODE (spec_target), ext_mode))
> 



More information about the Gcc-patches mailing list