On 1/15/2026 1:20 PM, Andrew Pinski wrote:
On Thu, Jan 15, 2026 at 12:17 PM Jeffrey Law
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 10/23/2025 10:43 AM, Nikita Biryukov wrote:
While investigating Zicond extension code generation on RISC-V, I identified
several cases where GCC (trunk) generates suboptimal code due to premature
if-conversion.
Consider the following test case:
CFLAGS: -march=rv64gc_zicond -mabi=lp64d -O2
int test_IOR_ceqz_x (int x, int z, int c)
{
if (c)
x = x | z;
return x;
}
Before the patch:
or a1,a0,a1
czero.eqz a1,a1,a2
czero.nez a0,a0,a2
add a0,a0,a1
ret
The issue occurs when ifcvt encounters the following RTL pattern:
(set reg1 (ior:DI (reg2:DI) (reg3:DI)))
(set reg4 (sign_extend:DI (subreg:SI (reg1:DI))))
When reg1 is no longer used, this expression could be simplified. However,
noce_convert_multiple_sets converts the block early, preventing combine from
optimizing the pattern.
This patch adds checks to bb_ok_for_noce_convert_multiple_sets to detect
such sign/zero extension patterns and reject noce_convert_multiple_sets when
combine has not yet run. This allows combine to simplify the expressions,
resulting in better code generation during the second ifcvt pass.
To minimize false positives, the additional checks only apply before the
combine pass.
Generated code for test_IOR_ceqz_x after the patch:
czero.eqz a2,a1,a2
or a0,a0,a2
ret
The patch has been bootstrapped and tested on riscv64-unknown-linux-gnu.
gcc/
* ifcvt.cc (noce_extended_and_dead_set_p): New function.
(bb_ok_for_noce_convert_multiple_sets): Use noce_extended_and_dead_set_p.
gcc/testsuite/
* gcc.target/riscv/zicond_ifcvt_opt_int.c: New test.
Just wanted to let you know this fell through the cracks and we're going
to have to revisit in the spring when the tree re-opens for development
(we're in regression bugfixes only for the next few months). Its in my
queue to revisit at the appropriate time.
Though I think it is the fix for https://gcc.gnu.org/PR123322 :).
If that's the case, then it can go forward as that PR is a regression.
Maybe that's why it's so damn familiar. I was just about to comment
that there was at least one bug related to the too-early if-conversion.
So I guess I'll put it on the gcc-16 list again ;-)
jeff
