diff mbox series

[PATCHv2,1/2] Improve do_store_flag for single bit comparison against 0

Message ID 20230520150406.1932767-1-apinski@marvell.com
State Unresolved
Headers
Series [PATCHv2,1/2] Improve do_store_flag for single bit comparison against 0 |

Checks

Context Check Description
snail/gcc-patch-check warning Git am fail log

Commit Message

Andrew Pinski May 20, 2023, 3:04 p.m. UTC 
  While working something else, I noticed we could improve
the following function code generation:
```
unsigned f(unsigned t)
{
  if (t & ~(1<<30)) __builtin_unreachable();
  return t != 0;
}
```
Right know we just emit a comparison against 0 instead
of just a shift right by 30.
There is code in do_store_flag which already optimizes
`(t & 1<<30) != 0` to `(t >> 30) & 1` (using bit extraction if available).
This patch extends it to handle the case where we know t has a nonzero
of just one bit set.

Changes from v1:
* v2: Updated for the bit extraction improvements.

OK? Bootstrapped and tested on x86_64-linux-gnu with no regressions.

gcc/ChangeLog:

	* expr.cc (do_store_flag): Extend the one bit checking case
	to handle the case where we don't have an and but rather still
	one bit is known to be non-zero.
---
 gcc/expr.cc | 25 ++++++++++++++++++++-----
 1 file changed, 20 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)

Comments

Jeff Law June 4, 2023, 4:54 p.m. UTC | #1 
On 5/20/23 09:04, Andrew Pinski via Gcc-patches wrote:
> While working something else, I noticed we could improve
> the following function code generation:
> ```
> unsigned f(unsigned t)
> {
>    if (t & ~(1<<30)) __builtin_unreachable();
>    return t != 0;
> }
> ```
> Right know we just emit a comparison against 0 instead
> of just a shift right by 30.
> There is code in do_store_flag which already optimizes
> `(t & 1<<30) != 0` to `(t >> 30) & 1` (using bit extraction if available).
> This patch extends it to handle the case where we know t has a nonzero
> of just one bit set.
> 
> Changes from v1:
> * v2: Updated for the bit extraction improvements.
> 
> OK? Bootstrapped and tested on x86_64-linux-gnu with no regressions.
> 
> gcc/ChangeLog:
> 
> 	* expr.cc (do_store_flag): Extend the one bit checking case
> 	to handle the case where we don't have an and but rather still
> 	one bit is known to be non-zero.
OK
jeff
diff mbox series

Patch

diff --git a/gcc/expr.cc b/gcc/expr.cc
index 6849c9627d0..b85e963b57e 100644
--- a/gcc/expr.cc
+++ b/gcc/expr.cc
@@ -13155,16 +13155,31 @@  do_store_flag (sepops ops, rtx target, machine_mode mode)
       && integer_zerop (arg1)
       && (TYPE_PRECISION (ops->type) != 1 || TYPE_UNSIGNED (ops->type)))
     {
-      gimple *srcstmt = get_def_for_expr (arg0, BIT_AND_EXPR);
-      if (srcstmt
-	  && integer_pow2p (gimple_assign_rhs2 (srcstmt)))
+      wide_int nz = tree_nonzero_bits (arg0);
+
+      if (wi::popcount (nz) == 1)
 	{
+	  tree op0;
+	  int bitnum;
+	  gimple *srcstmt = get_def_for_expr (arg0, BIT_AND_EXPR);
+	  /* If the defining statement was (x & POW2), then remove the and
+	     as we are going to add it back. */
+	  if (srcstmt
+	      && integer_pow2p (gimple_assign_rhs2 (srcstmt)))
+	    {
+	      op0 = gimple_assign_rhs1 (srcstmt);
+	      bitnum = tree_log2 (gimple_assign_rhs2 (srcstmt));
+	    }
+	  else
+	    {
+	      op0 = arg0;
+	      bitnum = wi::exact_log2 (nz);
+	    }
 	  enum tree_code tcode = code == NE ? NE_EXPR : EQ_EXPR;
-	  int bitnum = tree_log2 (gimple_assign_rhs2 (srcstmt));
 
 	  type = lang_hooks.types.type_for_mode (mode, unsignedp);
 	  return expand_single_bit_test (loc, tcode,
-					 gimple_assign_rhs1 (srcstmt),
+					 op0,
 					 bitnum, type, target, mode);
 	}
     }