i386: Improve __int128 argument passing (in ix86_expand_move).

Passing 128-bit integer (TImode) parameters on x86_64 can sometimes
result in surprising code.  Consider the example below (from PR 43644):

unsigned __int128 foo(unsigned __int128 x, unsigned long long y) {
  return x+y;
}

which currently results in 6 consecutive movq instructions:

foo:	movq    %rsi, %rax
        movq    %rdi, %rsi
        movq    %rdx, %rcx
        movq    %rax, %rdi
        movq    %rsi, %rax
        movq    %rdi, %rdx
        addq    %rcx, %rax
        adcq    $0, %rdx
        ret

The underlying issue is that during RTL expansion, we generate the
following initial RTL for the x argument:

(insn 4 3 5 2 (set (reg:TI 85)
        (subreg:TI (reg:DI 86) 0)) "pr43644-2.c":5:1 -1
     (nil))
(insn 5 4 6 2 (set (subreg:DI (reg:TI 85) 8)
        (reg:DI 87)) "pr43644-2.c":5:1 -1
     (nil))
(insn 6 5 7 2 (set (reg/v:TI 84 [ x ])
        (reg:TI 85)) "pr43644-2.c":5:1 -1
     (nil))

which by combine/reload becomes

(insn 25 3 22 2 (set (reg/v:TI 84 [ x ])
        (const_int 0 [0])) "pr43644-2.c":5:1 -1
     (nil))
(insn 22 25 23 2 (set (subreg:DI (reg/v:TI 84 [ x ]) 0)
        (reg:DI 93)) "pr43644-2.c":5:1 90 {*movdi_internal}
     (expr_list:REG_DEAD (reg:DI 93)
        (nil)))
(insn 23 22 28 2 (set (subreg:DI (reg/v:TI 84 [ x ]) 8)
        (reg:DI 94)) "pr43644-2.c":5:1 90 {*movdi_internal}
     (expr_list:REG_DEAD (reg:DI 94)
        (nil)))

where the heavy use of SUBREG SET_DESTs creates challenges for both
combine and register allocation.

The improvement proposed here is to avoid these problematic SUBREGs
by adding (two) special cases to ix86_expand_move.  For insn 4, which
sets a TImode destination from a paradoxical SUBREG, to assign the
lowpart, we can use an explicit zero extension (zero_extendditi2 was
added in July 2022), and for insn 5, which sets the highpart of a
TImode register we can use the *insvti_highpart_1 instruction (that
was added in May 2023, after being approved for stage1 in January).
This allows combine to work its magic, merging these insns into a
*concatditi3 and from there into other optimized forms.

So for the test case above, we now generate only a single movq:

foo:	movq    %rdx, %rax
        xorl    %edx, %edx
        addq    %rdi, %rax
        adcq    %rsi, %rdx
        ret

But there is a little bad news.  This patch causes two (minor) missed
optimization regressions on x86_64; gcc.target/i386/pr82580.c and
gcc.target/i386/pr91681-1.c.  As shown in the test case above, we're
no longer generating adcq $0, but instead using xorl.  For the other
FAIL, register allocation now has more freedom and is (arbitrarily)
choosing a register assignment that doesn't match what the test is
expecting.  These issues are easier to explain and fix once this patch
is in the tree.

The good news is that this approach fixes a number of long standing
issues, that need to checked in bugzilla, including PR target/110533
which was just opened/reported earlier this week.

2023-07-07  Roger Sayle  <roger@nextmovesoftware.com>

gcc/ChangeLog
	PR target/43644
	PR target/110533
	* config/i386/i386-expand.cc (ix86_expand_move): Convert SETs of
	TImode destinations from paradoxical SUBREGs (setting the lowpart)
	into explicit zero extensions.  Use *insvti_highpart_1 instruction
	to set the highpart of a TImode destination.

gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
	PR target/43644
	PR target/110533
	* gcc.target/i386/pr110533.c: New test case.
	* gcc.target/i386/pr43644-2.c: Likewise.

3 files changed, 46 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/gcc/config/i386/i386-expand.cc b/gcc/config/i386/i386-expand.cc
index 567248d..92ffa4b 100644
--- a/gcc/config/i386/i386-expand.cc
+++ b/gcc/config/i386/i386-expand.cc
@@ -429,6 +429,16 @@ ix86_expand_move (machine_mode mode, rtx operands[])
 
     default:
       break;
+
+    case SUBREG:
+      /* Transform TImode paradoxical SUBREG into zero_extendditi2.  */
+      if (TARGET_64BIT
+	  && mode == TImode
+	  && SUBREG_P (op1)
+	  && GET_MODE (SUBREG_REG (op1)) == DImode
+	  && SUBREG_BYTE (op1) == 0)
+	op1 = gen_rtx_ZERO_EXTEND (TImode, SUBREG_REG (op1));
+      break;
     }
 
   if ((flag_pic || MACHOPIC_INDIRECT)
@@ -532,6 +542,24 @@ ix86_expand_move (machine_mode mode, rtx operands[])
 	}
     }
 
+  /* Use *insvti_highpart_1 to set highpart of TImode register.  */
+  if (TARGET_64BIT
+      && mode == DImode
+      && SUBREG_P (op0)
+      && SUBREG_BYTE (op0) == 8
+      && GET_MODE (SUBREG_REG (op0)) == TImode
+      && REG_P (SUBREG_REG (op0))
+      && REG_P (op1))
+    {
+      wide_int mask = wi::mask (64, false, 128);
+      rtx tmp = immed_wide_int_const (mask, TImode);
+      op0 = SUBREG_REG (op0);
+      tmp = gen_rtx_AND (TImode, copy_rtx (op0), tmp);
+      op1 = gen_rtx_ZERO_EXTEND (TImode, op1);
+      op1 = gen_rtx_ASHIFT (TImode, op1, GEN_INT (64));
+      op1 = gen_rtx_IOR (TImode, tmp, op1);
+    }
+
   emit_insn (gen_rtx_SET (op0, op1));
 }
 
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr110533.c b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr110533.c
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..513bcd4
--- /dev/null
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr110533.c
@@ -0,0 +1,9 @@
+/* { dg-do compile { target int128 } } */
+/* { dg-options "-O0" } */
+
+__attribute__((naked))
+void fn(__int128 a) {
+    asm("ret");
+}
+
+/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-not "mov" } } */
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr43644-2.c b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr43644-2.c
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..d470b0a
--- /dev/null
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr43644-2.c
@@ -0,0 +1,9 @@
+/* { dg-do compile { target int128 } } */
+/* { dg-options "-O2" } */
+
+unsigned __int128 foo(unsigned __int128 x, unsigned long long y)
+{
+  return x+y;
+}
+
+/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times "movq" 1 } } */