Specify signed/unsigned/dontcare in calls to extract_bit_field_1.
This patch is inspired by Jakub's work on PR rtl-optimization/110717.
The bitfield example described in comment #2, looks like:
struct S { __int128 a : 69; };
unsigned type bar (struct S *p) {
return p->a;
}
which on x86_64 with -O2 currently generates:
bar: movzbl 8(%rdi), %ecx
movq (%rdi), %rax
andl $31, %ecx
movq %rcx, %rdx
salq $59, %rdx
sarq $59, %rdx
ret
The ANDL $31 is interesting... we first extract an unsigned 69-bit bitfield
by masking/clearing the top bits of the most significant word, and then
it gets sign-extended, by left shifting and arithmetic right shifting.
Obviously, this bit-wise AND is redundant, for signed bit-fields, we don't
require these bits to be cleared, if we're about to set them appropriately.
This patch eliminates this redundancy in the middle-end, during RTL
expansion, but extending the extract_bit_field APIs so that the integer
UNSIGNEDP argument takes a special value; 0 indicates the field should
be sign extended, 1 (any non-zero value) indicates the field should be
zero extended, but -1 indicates a third option, that we don't care how
or whether the field is extended. By passing and checking this sentinel
value at the appropriate places we avoid the useless bit masking (on
all targets).
For the test case above, with this patch we now generate:
bar: movzbl 8(%rdi), %ecx
movq (%rdi), %rax
movq %rcx, %rdx
salq $59, %rdx
sarq $59, %rdx
ret
2023-08-04 Roger Sayle <roger@nextmovesoftware.com>
gcc/ChangeLog
* expmed.cc (extract_bit_field_1): Document that an UNSIGNEDP
value of -1 is equivalent to don't care.
(extract_integral_bit_field): Indicate that we don't require
the most significant word to be zero extended, if we're about
to sign extend it.
(extract_fixed_bit_field_1): Document that an UNSIGNEDP value
of -1 is equivalent to don't care. Don't clear the most
significant bits with AND mask when UNSIGNEDP is -1.
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
* gcc.target/i386/pr110717-2.c: New test case.