Sorry for the slow reply. Robin Dapp via Gcc-patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org> writes: >> Hmm, OK. Doesn't expanding both versions up-front create the same kind of >> problem that the patch is fixing, in that we expand (and therefore cost) >> both the reversed and unreversed comparison? Also… >> > [..] >> >> …for min/max, I would have expected this swap to create the canonical >> operand order for the min and max too. What causes it to be rejected? >> > > We should not be expanding two comparisons but only emit (and cost) the > reversed comparison if expanding the non-reversed one failed.
The (potential) problem is that prepare_cmp_insn can itself emit instructions. With the current code we rewind any prepare_cmp_insn that isn't needed, whereas with the new code we might keep both. This also means that prepare_cmp_insn calls need to stay inside the: saved_pending_stack_adjust save; save_pending_stack_adjust (&save); last = get_last_insn (); do_pending_stack_adjust (); … delete_insns_since (last); restore_pending_stack_adjust (&save); block. > Regarding the reversal, I checked again - the commit introducing the > op2/op3 swap is g:deed3da9af697ecf073aea855ecce2d22d85ef71, the > corresponding test case is gcc.target/i386/pr70465-2.c. It inlines one > long double ternary operation into another, probably causing not for > multiple sets, mind you. The situation doesn't occur with double. OK, so going back to that revision and using the original SciMark test case, we first try: (lt (reg/v:DF 272 [ ab ]) (reg/v:DF 271 [ t ])) (reg/v:SI 227 [ jp ]) (subreg:SI (reg:DI 346 [ ivtmp.59 ]) 0) but i386 doesn't provide a native cbranchdf4 for lt and so the prepare_cmp_insn fails. Interesting that we use cbranch<mode>4 as the test for what conditional moves should accept, but I guess that isn't something to change now. So the key piece of information that I didn't realise before is that it was the prepare_cmp_insn that failed, not the mov<mode>cc expander. I think we can accomodate that in the new scheme by doing: if (rev_comparison && COMPARISON_P (rev_comparison)) prepare_cmp_insn (XEXP (rev_comparison, 0), XEXP (rev_comparison, 1), GET_CODE (rev_comparison), NULL_RTX, unsignedp, OPTAB_WIDEN, &rev_comparison, &cmode); first and then making: if (comparison && COMPARISON_P (comparison)) prepare_cmp_insn (XEXP (comparison, 0), XEXP (comparison, 1), GET_CODE (comparison), NULL_RTX, unsignedp, OPTAB_WIDEN, &comparison, &cmode); conditional on !rev_comparison. But maybe the above makes that moot. >>> + >>> + rtx rev_comparison = NULL_RTX; >>> bool swapped = false; >>> - if (swap_commutative_operands_p (op2, op3) >>> - && ((reversed = reversed_comparison_code_parts (code, op0, op1, >>> NULL)) >>> - != UNKNOWN)) >>> + >>> + code = unsignedp ? unsigned_condition (code) : code; >>> + comparison = simplify_gen_relational (code, VOIDmode, cmode, op0, op1); >>> + >>> + if ((reversed = reversed_comparison_code_parts (code, op0, op1, NULL)) >>> + != UNKNOWN) >>> { >>> - std::swap (op2, op3); >>> - code = reversed; >>> - swapped = true; >>> + reversed = unsignedp ? unsigned_condition (reversed) : reversed; >> >> When is this needed? I'd have expected the reversed from of an unsigned >> code to be naturally unsigned. > > This was also introduced by the commit above, probably just repeating > what was done for the non-reversed comparison. Yeah, but in the original code, the first reverse_comparison_code_parts happens outside the loop, before the first unsigned_condition (which happens inside the loop). In the new code, the unsigned_condition happens first, before we try reversing it. IMO the new order makes more sense than the old one. But it means that reversed_comparison_code_parts always sees a comparison of the right signedness, so we shouldn't need to adjust the result. Thanks, Richard