[RISC-V][V2] Fix incorrect if-then-else nesting of Zbs usage in constant synthesis

Reposting without the patch that ignores whitespace.  The CI system doesn't
like including both patches, that'll generate a failure to apply and none of
the tests actually get run.

So I managed to goof the if-then-else level of the bseti bits last week.  They
were supposed to be a last ditch effort to improve the result, but ended up
inside a conditional where they don't really belong.  I almost always use Zba,
Zbb and Zbs together, so it slipped by.

So it's NFC if you always test with Zbb and Zbs enabled together.  But if you
enabled Zbs without Zbb you'd see a failure to use bseti.

gcc/
	* config/riscv/riscv.cc (riscv_build_integer_1): Fix incorrect
	if-then-else nesting of Zbs code.

diff --git a/gcc/config/riscv/riscv.cc b/gcc/config/riscv/riscv.cc
index 62207b6b2273ba3095621b4de144772a29b815c8..633b55f9707a1e51a5149e6df9dfee778302cd9a 100644 (file)
--- a/gcc/config/riscv/riscv.cc
+++ b/gcc/config/riscv/riscv.cc
@@ -878,50 +878,51 @@ riscv_build_integer_1 (struct riscv_integer_op codes[RISCV_MAX_INTEGER_OPS],
          codes[1].use_uw = false;
          cost = 2;
        }
-      /* Final cases, particularly focused on bseti.  */
-      else if (cost > 2 && TARGET_ZBS)
-       {
-         int i = 0;
+    }
 
-         /* First handle any bits set by LUI.  Be careful of the
-            SImode sign bit!.  */
-         if (value & 0x7ffff800)
-           {
-             alt_codes[i].code = (i == 0 ? UNKNOWN : IOR);
-             alt_codes[i].value = value & 0x7ffff800;
-             alt_codes[i].use_uw = false;
-             value &= ~0x7ffff800;
-             i++;
-           }
+  /* Final cases, particularly focused on bseti.  */
+  if (cost > 2 && TARGET_ZBS)
+    {
+      int i = 0;
 
-         /* Next, any bits we can handle with addi.  */
-         if (value & 0x7ff)
-           {
-             alt_codes[i].code = (i == 0 ? UNKNOWN : PLUS);
-             alt_codes[i].value = value & 0x7ff;
-             alt_codes[i].use_uw = false;
-             value &= ~0x7ff;
-             i++;
-           }
+      /* First handle any bits set by LUI.  Be careful of the
+        SImode sign bit!.  */
+      if (value & 0x7ffff800)
+       {
+         alt_codes[i].code = (i == 0 ? UNKNOWN : IOR);
+         alt_codes[i].value = value & 0x7ffff800;
+         alt_codes[i].use_uw = false;
+         value &= ~0x7ffff800;
+          i++;
+       }
 
-         /* And any residuals with bseti.  */
-         while (i < cost && value)
-           {
-             HOST_WIDE_INT bit = ctz_hwi (value);
-             alt_codes[i].code = (i == 0 ? UNKNOWN : IOR);
-             alt_codes[i].value = 1UL << bit;
-             alt_codes[i].use_uw = false;
-             value &= ~(1ULL << bit);
-             i++;
-           }
+      /* Next, any bits we can handle with addi.  */
+      if (value & 0x7ff)
+       {
+         alt_codes[i].code = (i == 0 ? UNKNOWN : PLUS);
+         alt_codes[i].value = value & 0x7ff;
+         alt_codes[i].use_uw = false;
+         value &= ~0x7ff;
+         i++;
+       }
 
-         /* If LUI+ADDI+BSETI resulted in a more efficient
-            sequence, then use it.  */
-         if (i < cost)
-           {
-             memcpy (codes, alt_codes, sizeof (alt_codes));
-             cost = i;
-           }
+      /* And any residuals with bseti.  */
+      while (i < cost && value)
+       {
+         HOST_WIDE_INT bit = ctz_hwi (value);
+         alt_codes[i].code = (i == 0 ? UNKNOWN : IOR);
+         alt_codes[i].value = 1UL << bit;
+         alt_codes[i].use_uw = false;
+         value &= ~(1ULL << bit);
+         i++;
+       }
+
+      /* If LUI+ADDI+BSETI resulted in a more efficient
+        sequence, then use it.  */
+      if (i < cost)
+       {
+         memcpy (codes, alt_codes, sizeof (alt_codes));
+         cost = i;
        }
     }