Re: [PATCH 4/4] rs6000: build constant via li/lis;rldic
On 2023-06-13 17:18, Jiufu Guo via Gcc-patches wrote: Hi David, Thanks for your valuable comments! David Edelsohn writes: ... Do you have any measurement of how expensive it is to test all of these additional methods to generate a constant? How much does this affect the compile time? Yeap, Thanks for this very good question! This patch is mostly using bitwise operations and if-conditions, it would be expected not expensive. Testcases were checked. For example: A case with ~1000 constants: most of them hit this feature. With this feature, the compiling time is slightly faster. 0m1.985s(without patch) vs. 0m1.874s(with patch) (note:D rs6000_emit_set_long_const does not occur in hot perf functions. So, the tricky time saving would not directly cause by this feature.) A case with ~1000 constants:(most are not hit by this feature) 0m2.493s(without patch) vs. 0m2.558s(with patch). Typo, this should be: 0m2.493s(with patch) vs. 0m2.558s(without patch). It is also faster with the patch :) BR, Jeff (Jiufu Guo) For runtime, actually, with the patch, it seems there is no visible improvement in SPEC2017. While I still feel this patch is doing the right thing: use fewer instructions to build the constant. BR, Jeff (Jiufu Guo) Thanks, David
Re: [PATCH 4/4] rs6000: build constant via li/lis;rldic
Hi David,
Thanks for your valuable comments!
David Edelsohn writes:
>
> On Wed, Jun 7, 2023 at 9:56 PM Jiufu Guo wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> This patch checks if a constant is possible to be built by "li;rldic".
> We only need to take care of "negative li", other forms do not need to check.
> For example, "negative lis" is just a "negative li" with an additional shift.
>
> Bootstrap and regtest pass on ppc64{,le}.
> Is this ok for trunk?
>
> BR,
> Jeff (Jiufu)
>
> gcc/ChangeLog:
>
> * config/rs6000/rs6000.cc (can_be_built_by_li_and_rldic): New
> function.
> (rs6000_emit_set_long_const): Call can_be_built_by_li_and_rldic.
>
> This is okay.
>
> Do you have any measurement of how expensive it is to test all of these
> additional methods to generate a constant? How much does this affect the
> compile time?
Yeap, Thanks for this very good question!
This patch is mostly using bitwise operations and if-conditions,
it would be expected not expensive.
Testcases were checked. For example:
A case with ~1000 constants: most of them hit this feature.
With this feature, the compiling time is slightly faster.
0m1.985s(without patch) vs. 0m1.874s(with patch)
(note:D rs6000_emit_set_long_const does not occur in hot perf
functions. So, the tricky time saving would not directly cause
by this feature.)
A case with ~1000 constants:(most are not hit by this feature)
0m2.493s(without patch) vs. 0m2.558s(with patch).
For runtime, actually, with the patch, it seems there is no visible
improvement in SPEC2017. While I still feel this patch is
doing the right thing: use fewer instructions to build the constant.
BR,
Jeff (Jiufu Guo)
>
> Thanks, David
>
>
>
> gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
>
> * gcc.target/powerpc/const-build.c: Add more tests.
> ---
> gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.cc | 61 ++-
> .../gcc.target/powerpc/const-build.c | 28 +
> 2 files changed, 88 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.cc b/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.cc
> index 2a3fa733b45..cd04b6b5c82 100644
> --- a/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.cc
> +++ b/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.cc
> @@ -10387,6 +10387,64 @@ can_be_built_by_li_lis_and_rldicr (HOST_WIDE_INT c,
> int *shift,
> return false;
> }
>
> +/* Check if value C can be built by 2 instructions: one is 'li', another is
> + rldic.
> +
> + If so, *SHIFT is set to the 'shift' operand of rldic; and *MASK is set
> + to the mask value about the 'mb' operand of rldic; and return true.
> + Return false otherwise. */
> +
> +static bool
> +can_be_built_by_li_and_rldic (HOST_WIDE_INT c, int *shift, HOST_WIDE_INT
> *mask)
> +{
> + /* There are 49 successive ones in the negative value of 'li'. */
> + int ones = 49;
> +
> + /* 1..1xx1..1: negative value of li --> 0..01..1xx0..0:
> + right bits are shifted as 0's, and left 1's(and x's) are cleaned. */
> + int tz = ctz_hwi (c);
> + int lz = clz_hwi (c);
> + int middle_ones = clz_hwi (~(c << lz));
> + if (tz + lz + middle_ones >= ones)
> +{
> + *mask = ((1LL << (HOST_BITS_PER_WIDE_INT - tz - lz)) - 1LL) << tz;
> + *shift = tz;
> + return true;
> +}
> +
> + /* 1..1xx1..1 --> 1..1xx0..01..1: some 1's(following x's) are cleaned. */
> + int leading_ones = clz_hwi (~c);
> + int tailing_ones = ctz_hwi (~c);
> + int middle_zeros = ctz_hwi (c >> tailing_ones);
> + if (leading_ones + tailing_ones + middle_zeros >= ones)
> +{
> + *mask = ~(((1ULL << middle_zeros) - 1ULL) << tailing_ones);
> + *shift = tailing_ones + middle_zeros;
> + return true;
> +}
> +
> + /* xx1..1xx: --> xx0..01..1xx: some 1's(following x's) are cleaned. */
> + /* Get the position for the first bit of successive 1.
> + The 24th bit would be in successive 0 or 1. */
> + HOST_WIDE_INT low_mask = (1LL << 24) - 1LL;
> + int pos_first_1 = ((c & (low_mask + 1)) == 0)
> + ? clz_hwi (c & low_mask)
> + : HOST_BITS_PER_WIDE_INT - ctz_hwi (~(c | low_mask));
> + middle_ones = clz_hwi (~c << pos_first_1);
> + middle_zeros = ctz_hwi (c >> (HOST_BITS_PER_WIDE_INT - pos_first_1));
> + if (pos_first_1 < HOST_BITS_PER_WIDE_INT
> + && middle_ones + middle_zeros < HOST_BITS_PER_WIDE_INT
> + && middle_ones + middle_zeros >= ones)
> +{
> + *mask = ~(((1ULL << middle_zeros) - 1LL)
> + << (HOST_BITS_PER_WIDE_INT - pos_first_1));
> + *shift = HOST_BITS_PER_WIDE_INT - pos_first_1 + middle_zeros;
> + return true;
> +}
> +
> + return false;
> +}
> +
> /* Subroutine of rs6000_emit_set_const, handling PowerPC64 DImode.
> Output insns to set DEST equal to the constant C as a series of
> lis, ori and shl instructions. */
> @@ -10435,7 +10493,8 @@ rs6000_emit_set_long_const (rtx dest, HOST_WIDE_INT
> c)
> }
> else if (can_be_built_by_li_lis_and_rotldi (c, , )
>
Re: [PATCH 4/4] rs6000: build constant via li/lis;rldic
On Wed, Jun 7, 2023 at 9:56 PM Jiufu Guo wrote:
> Hi,
>
> This patch checks if a constant is possible to be built by "li;rldic".
> We only need to take care of "negative li", other forms do not need to
> check.
> For example, "negative lis" is just a "negative li" with an additional
> shift.
>
> Bootstrap and regtest pass on ppc64{,le}.
> Is this ok for trunk?
>
> BR,
> Jeff (Jiufu)
>
> gcc/ChangeLog:
>
> * config/rs6000/rs6000.cc (can_be_built_by_li_and_rldic): New
> function.
> (rs6000_emit_set_long_const): Call can_be_built_by_li_and_rldic.
>
This is okay.
Do you have any measurement of how expensive it is to test all of these
additional methods to generate a constant? How much does this affect the
compile time?
Thanks, David
>
> gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
>
> * gcc.target/powerpc/const-build.c: Add more tests.
> ---
> gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.cc | 61 ++-
> .../gcc.target/powerpc/const-build.c | 28 +
> 2 files changed, 88 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.cc b/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.cc
> index 2a3fa733b45..cd04b6b5c82 100644
> --- a/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.cc
> +++ b/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.cc
> @@ -10387,6 +10387,64 @@ can_be_built_by_li_lis_and_rldicr (HOST_WIDE_INT
> c, int *shift,
>return false;
> }
>
> +/* Check if value C can be built by 2 instructions: one is 'li', another
> is
> + rldic.
> +
> + If so, *SHIFT is set to the 'shift' operand of rldic; and *MASK is set
> + to the mask value about the 'mb' operand of rldic; and return true.
> + Return false otherwise. */
> +
> +static bool
> +can_be_built_by_li_and_rldic (HOST_WIDE_INT c, int *shift, HOST_WIDE_INT
> *mask)
> +{
> + /* There are 49 successive ones in the negative value of 'li'. */
> + int ones = 49;
> +
> + /* 1..1xx1..1: negative value of li --> 0..01..1xx0..0:
> + right bits are shifted as 0's, and left 1's(and x's) are cleaned. */
> + int tz = ctz_hwi (c);
> + int lz = clz_hwi (c);
> + int middle_ones = clz_hwi (~(c << lz));
> + if (tz + lz + middle_ones >= ones)
> +{
> + *mask = ((1LL << (HOST_BITS_PER_WIDE_INT - tz - lz)) - 1LL) << tz;
> + *shift = tz;
> + return true;
> +}
> +
> + /* 1..1xx1..1 --> 1..1xx0..01..1: some 1's(following x's) are cleaned.
> */
> + int leading_ones = clz_hwi (~c);
> + int tailing_ones = ctz_hwi (~c);
> + int middle_zeros = ctz_hwi (c >> tailing_ones);
> + if (leading_ones + tailing_ones + middle_zeros >= ones)
> +{
> + *mask = ~(((1ULL << middle_zeros) - 1ULL) << tailing_ones);
> + *shift = tailing_ones + middle_zeros;
> + return true;
> +}
> +
> + /* xx1..1xx: --> xx0..01..1xx: some 1's(following x's) are cleaned. */
> + /* Get the position for the first bit of successive 1.
> + The 24th bit would be in successive 0 or 1. */
> + HOST_WIDE_INT low_mask = (1LL << 24) - 1LL;
> + int pos_first_1 = ((c & (low_mask + 1)) == 0)
> + ? clz_hwi (c & low_mask)
> + : HOST_BITS_PER_WIDE_INT - ctz_hwi (~(c | low_mask));
> + middle_ones = clz_hwi (~c << pos_first_1);
> + middle_zeros = ctz_hwi (c >> (HOST_BITS_PER_WIDE_INT - pos_first_1));
> + if (pos_first_1 < HOST_BITS_PER_WIDE_INT
> + && middle_ones + middle_zeros < HOST_BITS_PER_WIDE_INT
> + && middle_ones + middle_zeros >= ones)
> +{
> + *mask = ~(((1ULL << middle_zeros) - 1LL)
> + << (HOST_BITS_PER_WIDE_INT - pos_first_1));
> + *shift = HOST_BITS_PER_WIDE_INT - pos_first_1 + middle_zeros;
> + return true;
> +}
> +
> + return false;
> +}
> +
> /* Subroutine of rs6000_emit_set_const, handling PowerPC64 DImode.
> Output insns to set DEST equal to the constant C as a series of
> lis, ori and shl instructions. */
> @@ -10435,7 +10493,8 @@ rs6000_emit_set_long_const (rtx dest,
> HOST_WIDE_INT c)
> }
>else if (can_be_built_by_li_lis_and_rotldi (c, , )
>|| can_be_built_by_li_lis_and_rldicl (c, , )
> - || can_be_built_by_li_lis_and_rldicr (c, , ))
> + || can_be_built_by_li_lis_and_rldicr (c, , )
> + || can_be_built_by_li_and_rldic (c, , ))
> {
>temp = !can_create_pseudo_p () ? dest : gen_reg_rtx (DImode);
>unsigned HOST_WIDE_INT imm = (c | ~mask);
> diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/const-build.c
> b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/const-build.c
> index 8c209921d41..b503ee31c7c 100644
> --- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/const-build.c
> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/const-build.c
> @@ -82,6 +82,29 @@ lis_rldicr_12 (void)
>return 0x5310LL;
> }
>
> +long long NOIPA
> +li_rldic_13 (void)
> +{
> + return 0x000f8531LL;
> +}
> +long long NOIPA
> +li_rldic_14 (void)
> +{
> + return 0x853100ffLL;
> +}
> +
> +long long NOIPA
> +li_rldic_15 (void)
> +{
> + return 0x8031LL;
> +}
> +
> +long long NOIPA
> +li_rldic_16 (void)
> +{
>
[PATCH 4/4] rs6000: build constant via li/lis;rldic
Hi,
This patch checks if a constant is possible to be built by "li;rldic".
We only need to take care of "negative li", other forms do not need to check.
For example, "negative lis" is just a "negative li" with an additional shift.
Bootstrap and regtest pass on ppc64{,le}.
Is this ok for trunk?
BR,
Jeff (Jiufu)
gcc/ChangeLog:
* config/rs6000/rs6000.cc (can_be_built_by_li_and_rldic): New function.
(rs6000_emit_set_long_const): Call can_be_built_by_li_and_rldic.
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
* gcc.target/powerpc/const-build.c: Add more tests.
---
gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.cc | 61 ++-
.../gcc.target/powerpc/const-build.c | 28 +
2 files changed, 88 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.cc b/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.cc
index 2a3fa733b45..cd04b6b5c82 100644
--- a/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.cc
+++ b/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.cc
@@ -10387,6 +10387,64 @@ can_be_built_by_li_lis_and_rldicr (HOST_WIDE_INT c,
int *shift,
return false;
}
+/* Check if value C can be built by 2 instructions: one is 'li', another is
+ rldic.
+
+ If so, *SHIFT is set to the 'shift' operand of rldic; and *MASK is set
+ to the mask value about the 'mb' operand of rldic; and return true.
+ Return false otherwise. */
+
+static bool
+can_be_built_by_li_and_rldic (HOST_WIDE_INT c, int *shift, HOST_WIDE_INT *mask)
+{
+ /* There are 49 successive ones in the negative value of 'li'. */
+ int ones = 49;
+
+ /* 1..1xx1..1: negative value of li --> 0..01..1xx0..0:
+ right bits are shifted as 0's, and left 1's(and x's) are cleaned. */
+ int tz = ctz_hwi (c);
+ int lz = clz_hwi (c);
+ int middle_ones = clz_hwi (~(c << lz));
+ if (tz + lz + middle_ones >= ones)
+{
+ *mask = ((1LL << (HOST_BITS_PER_WIDE_INT - tz - lz)) - 1LL) << tz;
+ *shift = tz;
+ return true;
+}
+
+ /* 1..1xx1..1 --> 1..1xx0..01..1: some 1's(following x's) are cleaned. */
+ int leading_ones = clz_hwi (~c);
+ int tailing_ones = ctz_hwi (~c);
+ int middle_zeros = ctz_hwi (c >> tailing_ones);
+ if (leading_ones + tailing_ones + middle_zeros >= ones)
+{
+ *mask = ~(((1ULL << middle_zeros) - 1ULL) << tailing_ones);
+ *shift = tailing_ones + middle_zeros;
+ return true;
+}
+
+ /* xx1..1xx: --> xx0..01..1xx: some 1's(following x's) are cleaned. */
+ /* Get the position for the first bit of successive 1.
+ The 24th bit would be in successive 0 or 1. */
+ HOST_WIDE_INT low_mask = (1LL << 24) - 1LL;
+ int pos_first_1 = ((c & (low_mask + 1)) == 0)
+ ? clz_hwi (c & low_mask)
+ : HOST_BITS_PER_WIDE_INT - ctz_hwi (~(c | low_mask));
+ middle_ones = clz_hwi (~c << pos_first_1);
+ middle_zeros = ctz_hwi (c >> (HOST_BITS_PER_WIDE_INT - pos_first_1));
+ if (pos_first_1 < HOST_BITS_PER_WIDE_INT
+ && middle_ones + middle_zeros < HOST_BITS_PER_WIDE_INT
+ && middle_ones + middle_zeros >= ones)
+{
+ *mask = ~(((1ULL << middle_zeros) - 1LL)
+ << (HOST_BITS_PER_WIDE_INT - pos_first_1));
+ *shift = HOST_BITS_PER_WIDE_INT - pos_first_1 + middle_zeros;
+ return true;
+}
+
+ return false;
+}
+
/* Subroutine of rs6000_emit_set_const, handling PowerPC64 DImode.
Output insns to set DEST equal to the constant C as a series of
lis, ori and shl instructions. */
@@ -10435,7 +10493,8 @@ rs6000_emit_set_long_const (rtx dest, HOST_WIDE_INT c)
}
else if (can_be_built_by_li_lis_and_rotldi (c, , )
|| can_be_built_by_li_lis_and_rldicl (c, , )
- || can_be_built_by_li_lis_and_rldicr (c, , ))
+ || can_be_built_by_li_lis_and_rldicr (c, , )
+ || can_be_built_by_li_and_rldic (c, , ))
{
temp = !can_create_pseudo_p () ? dest : gen_reg_rtx (DImode);
unsigned HOST_WIDE_INT imm = (c | ~mask);
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/const-build.c
b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/const-build.c
index 8c209921d41..b503ee31c7c 100644
--- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/const-build.c
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/const-build.c
@@ -82,6 +82,29 @@ lis_rldicr_12 (void)
return 0x5310LL;
}
+long long NOIPA
+li_rldic_13 (void)
+{
+ return 0x000f8531LL;
+}
+long long NOIPA
+li_rldic_14 (void)
+{
+ return 0x853100ffLL;
+}
+
+long long NOIPA
+li_rldic_15 (void)
+{
+ return 0x8031LL;
+}
+
+long long NOIPA
+li_rldic_16 (void)
+{
+ return 0x8f31LL;
+}
+
struct fun arr[] = {
{li_rotldi_1, 0x75310LL},
{li_rotldi_2, 0x2164LL},
@@ -95,11 +118,16 @@ struct fun arr[] = {
{li_rldicr_10, 0x8531fff0LL},
{li_rldicr_11, 0x21f0LL},
{lis_rldicr_12, 0x5310LL},
+ {li_rldic_13, 0x000f8531LL},
+ {li_rldic_14, 0x853100ffLL},
+ {li_rldic_15, 0x8031LL},
+ {li_rldic_16, 0x8f31LL}
};
/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times
[PATCH 4/4] rs6000: build constant via li/lis;rldic
Hi,
This patch checks if a constant is possible to be built by "li;rldic".
We only need to take care of "negative li", other forms do not need to check.
For example, "negative lis" is just a "negative li" with an additional shift.
Bootstrap and regtest pass on ppc64{,le}.
Is this ok for trunk or next stage1?
BR,
Jeff (Jiufu)
gcc/ChangeLog:
* config/rs6000/rs6000.cc (can_be_built_by_li_and_rldic): New function.
(rs6000_emit_set_long_const): Call can_be_built_by_li_and_rldic.
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
* gcc.target/powerpc/const-build.c: Add more tests.
---
gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.cc | 60 ++-
.../gcc.target/powerpc/const-build.c | 28 +
2 files changed, 87 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.cc b/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.cc
index 025abaa436e..59b4e422058 100644
--- a/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.cc
+++ b/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.cc
@@ -10361,6 +10361,63 @@ can_be_built_by_li_lis_and_rldicr (HOST_WIDE_INT c,
int *shift,
return false;
}
+/* Check if value C can be built by 2 instructions: one is 'li', another is
+ rldic.
+
+ If so, *SHIFT is set to the 'shift' operand of rldic; and *MASK is set
+ to the mask value about the 'mb' operand of rldic; and return true.
+ Return false otherwise. */
+static bool
+can_be_built_by_li_and_rldic (HOST_WIDE_INT c, int *shift, HOST_WIDE_INT *mask)
+{
+ /* There are 49 successive ones in the negative value of 'li'. */
+ int ones = 49;
+
+ /* 1..1xx1..1: negative value of li --> 0..01..1xx0..0:
+ right bits are shiftted as 0's, and left 1's(and x's) are cleaned. */
+ int tz = ctz_hwi (c);
+ int lz = clz_hwi (c);
+ int middle_ones = clz_hwi (~(c << lz));
+ if (tz + lz + middle_ones >= ones)
+{
+ *mask = ((1LL << (HOST_BITS_PER_WIDE_INT - tz - lz)) - 1LL) << tz;
+ *shift = tz;
+ return true;
+}
+
+ /* 1..1xx1..1 --> 1..1xx0..01..1: some 1's(following x's) are cleaned. */
+ int leading_ones = clz_hwi (~c);
+ int tailing_ones = ctz_hwi (~c);
+ int middle_zeros = ctz_hwi (c >> tailing_ones);
+ if (leading_ones + tailing_ones + middle_zeros >= ones)
+{
+ *mask = ~(((1ULL << middle_zeros) - 1ULL) << tailing_ones);
+ *shift = tailing_ones + middle_zeros;
+ return true;
+}
+
+ /* xx1..1xx: --> xx0..01..1xx: some 1's(following x's) are cleaned. */
+ /* Get the possition for the first bit of sucessive 1.
+ The 24th bit would be in successive 0 or 1. */
+ HOST_WIDE_INT low_mask = (1LL << 24) - 1LL;
+ int pos_first_1 = ((c & (low_mask + 1)) == 0)
+ ? clz_hwi (c & low_mask)
+ : HOST_BITS_PER_WIDE_INT - ctz_hwi (~(c | low_mask));
+ middle_ones = clz_hwi (~c << pos_first_1);
+ middle_zeros = ctz_hwi (c >> (HOST_BITS_PER_WIDE_INT - pos_first_1));
+ if (pos_first_1 < HOST_BITS_PER_WIDE_INT
+ && middle_ones + middle_zeros < HOST_BITS_PER_WIDE_INT
+ && middle_ones + middle_zeros >= ones)
+{
+ *mask = ~(((1ULL << middle_zeros) - 1LL)
+ << (HOST_BITS_PER_WIDE_INT - pos_first_1));
+ *shift = HOST_BITS_PER_WIDE_INT - pos_first_1 + middle_zeros;
+ return true;
+}
+
+ return false;
+}
+
/* Subroutine of rs6000_emit_set_const, handling PowerPC64 DImode.
Output insns to set DEST equal to the constant C as a series of
lis, ori and shl instructions. */
@@ -10402,7 +10459,8 @@ rs6000_emit_set_long_const (rtx dest, HOST_WIDE_INT c)
}
else if (can_be_built_by_li_lis_and_rotldi (c, , )
|| can_be_built_by_li_lis_and_rldicl (c, , )
- || can_be_built_by_li_lis_and_rldicr (c, , ))
+ || can_be_built_by_li_lis_and_rldicr (c, , )
+ || can_be_built_by_li_and_rldic (c, , ))
{
temp = !can_create_pseudo_p () ? dest : gen_reg_rtx (DImode);
unsigned HOST_WIDE_INT imm = (c | ~mask);
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/const-build.c
b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/const-build.c
index 8c209921d41..b503ee31c7c 100644
--- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/const-build.c
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/const-build.c
@@ -82,6 +82,29 @@ lis_rldicr_12 (void)
return 0x5310LL;
}
+long long NOIPA
+li_rldic_13 (void)
+{
+ return 0x000f8531LL;
+}
+long long NOIPA
+li_rldic_14 (void)
+{
+ return 0x853100ffLL;
+}
+
+long long NOIPA
+li_rldic_15 (void)
+{
+ return 0x8031LL;
+}
+
+long long NOIPA
+li_rldic_16 (void)
+{
+ return 0x8f31LL;
+}
+
struct fun arr[] = {
{li_rotldi_1, 0x75310LL},
{li_rotldi_2, 0x2164LL},
@@ -95,11 +118,16 @@ struct fun arr[] = {
{li_rldicr_10, 0x8531fff0LL},
{li_rldicr_11, 0x21f0LL},
{lis_rldicr_12, 0x5310LL},
+ {li_rldic_13, 0x000f8531LL},
+ {li_rldic_14, 0x853100ffLL},
+ {li_rldic_15, 0x8031LL},
+ {li_rldic_16, 0x8f31LL}
};
/* { dg-final {
