On Thu, Jul 18, 2024 at 10:31 PM Stefan Schulze Frielinghaus
<stefa...@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
>
> Previously we optimized expressions of the form a < 0 ? -1 : 0 to
> (signed)a >> 31 during vcond expanding.  Since r15-1741-g2ccdd0f22312a1
> this is done in match.pd.  The implementation in the back end as well as
> in match.pd are basically the same but still distinct.  For the tests in
> vcond-shift.c the back end emitted
>
>   (xx - (xx >> 31)) >> 1
>
> whereas now via match.pd
>
>   ((int) ((unsigned int) xx >> 31) + xx) >> 1
>
> which is basically the same.  We just have to adapt the scan-assembler
> directives w.r.t. signed/unsigned shifts which is done by this patch.

Note I filed https://gcc.gnu.org/PR115999 because I noticed those 2
form produce slightly different code generation for scalars (I assume
it will produce similar issues for vectors too).

Thanks,
Andrew Pinski

>
> gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
>
>         * gcc.target/s390/vector/vcond-shift.c: Adapt to new match.pd
>         rule and change scan-assembler-times for shifts.
> ---
>  Regtested on s390.  Ok for mainline?
>
>  gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/s390/vector/vcond-shift.c | 12 ++++++------
>  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/s390/vector/vcond-shift.c 
> b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/s390/vector/vcond-shift.c
> index a6b4e97aa50..b942f44039d 100644
> --- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/s390/vector/vcond-shift.c
> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/s390/vector/vcond-shift.c
> @@ -3,13 +3,13 @@
>  /* { dg-do compile { target { s390*-*-* } } } */
>  /* { dg-options "-O3 -march=z13 -mzarch" } */
>
> -/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times "vesraf\t%v.?,%v.?,31" 6 } } */
> -/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times "vesrah\t%v.?,%v.?,15" 6 } } */
> -/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times "vesrab\t%v.?,%v.?,7" 6 } } */
> +/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times "vesraf\t%v.?,%v.?,31" 4 } } */
> +/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times "vesrah\t%v.?,%v.?,15" 4 } } */
> +/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times "vesrab\t%v.?,%v.?,7" 4 } } */
>  /* { dg-final { scan-assembler-not "vzero\t*" } } */
> -/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times "vesrlf\t%v.?,%v.?,31" 4 } } */
> -/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times "vesrlh\t%v.?,%v.?,15" 4 } } */
> -/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times "vesrlb\t%v.?,%v.?,7" 4 } } */
> +/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times "vesrlf\t%v.?,%v.?,31" 6 } } */
> +/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times "vesrlh\t%v.?,%v.?,15" 6 } } */
> +/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times "vesrlb\t%v.?,%v.?,7" 6 } } */
>
>  /* Make it expand to two vector operations.  */
>  #define ITER(X) (2 * (16 / sizeof (X[1])))
> --
> 2.45.2
>

Reply via email to