[llvm-bugs] [Bug 34641] New: x86: shld peephole missed with masked shift-counts
via llvm-bugs
llvm-bugs at lists.llvm.org
Fri Sep 15 23:26:59 PDT 2017
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=34641
Bug ID: 34641
Summary: x86: shld peephole missed with masked shift-counts
Product: clang
Version: trunk
Hardware: PC
OS: Linux
Status: NEW
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P
Component: LLVM Codegen
Assignee: unassignedclangbugs at nondot.org
Reporter: peter at cordes.ca
CC: llvm-bugs at lists.llvm.org
unsigned shld_safe(unsigned a, unsigned b, unsigned n){
//n=13;
a <<= n&31;
b >>= (32-n)&31; // (32-n)&31
return a|b;
}
https://godbolt.org/g/MxuAht
clang 6.0.0 (trunk 313348) -march=skylake -O3
shlx ecx, edi, edx
neg edx # at least 32&31 optimized to 0
shrx eax, esi, edx
or eax, ecx
ret
It takes even more instructions without BMI2, of course.
Without the `&31`, this optimizes to SHLD, so the peephole needs to learn that
SHLD masks the shift-count with &31 for 32-bit or smaller operand-size. (Or
with &63 for 64-bit operand-size). http://felixcloutier.com/x86/SHLD.html.
mov ecx, edx
shld edi, esi, cl
mov eax, edi
ret
I didn't test with SHRD, but I assume it's the same.
BTW, this peephole activates even with `-march=znver1` or other AMD
architectures, where shld r,r,cl is 7 uops... SHLD may still be worth it
without BMI2 for the variable-count case, but probably not when BMI2 is
available and tuning for AMD.
SHLD is probably still a good idea for tune=generic, especially with
variable-count; it's great on Intel, and only slightly worse than the amount of
instructions it takes to work around it on AMD, unless VectorPath instructions
are really bad in the front-end.)
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-bugs/attachments/20170916/3fcbf5d0/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the llvm-bugs
mailing list