From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <scottwood@freescale.com>
Received: from az33egw01.freescale.net (az33egw01.freescale.net
	[192.88.158.102])
	(using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
	(Client CN "az33egw01.freescale.net",
	Issuer "Thawte Premium Server CA" (verified OK))
	by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 07E61DE1FF
	for <linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org>; Thu, 26 Jun 2008 02:18:25 +1000 (EST)
Message-ID: <48626FA9.8010903@freescale.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2008 11:17:45 -0500
From: Scott Wood <scottwood@freescale.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Gabriel Paubert <paubert@iram.es>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/9] powerpc: Add macros to access floating point	registers
	in thread_struct.
References: <20080625040718.028B470296@localhost.localdomain>
	<F09034D9-1B3C-4087-B6DF-FAB7B3AFA191@kernel.crashing.org>
	<48626588.8050202@freescale.com> <20080625161255.GA12165@iram.es>
In-Reply-To: <20080625161255.GA12165@iram.es>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Cc: linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, Michael Neuling <mikey@neuling.org>,
	Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>
List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List <linuxppc-dev.ozlabs.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://ozlabs.org/mailman/options/linuxppc-dev>,
	<mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@ozlabs.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://ozlabs.org/pipermail/linuxppc-dev>
List-Post: <mailto:linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org>
List-Help: <mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@ozlabs.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev>,
	<mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@ozlabs.org?subject=subscribe>

Gabriel Paubert wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 10:34:32AM -0500, Scott Wood wrote:
>> Kumar Gala wrote:
>>>> +/* Macros to workout the correct index for the FPR in the thread 
>>>> struct */
>>>> +#define FPRNUMBER(i) (((i) - PT_FPR0) >> 1)
>>>> +#define FPRHALF(i) (((i) - PT_FPR0) % 2)
>>> Have you looked at what the compiler spits out here to make sure we 
>>> aren't getting a divide?  Seems like we could use '& 0x1'.
>> GCC's not *that* dumb.  However, you may get some unnecessary 
>> sign-twiddling if "i" is signed.
> 
> Not for modulo 2, it's only an even/odd choice and GCC 
> implements that efficiently IIRC. For other powers of 2,
> making the left hand side unsigned helps the compiler.

 From this:

int foo(int x)
{
	return x % 2;
}

I get this with -O3:

foo:
         mr 0,3
         srawi 3,3,1
         addze 3,3
         slwi 3,3,1
         subf 3,3,0
         blr
         .size   foo, .-foo
         .ident  "GCC: (GNU) 4.1.2"

Changing it to "x & 1", or to unsigned, gives this:

foo:
         rlwinm 3,3,0,31,31
         blr
         .size   foo, .-foo
         .ident  "GCC: (GNU) 4.1.2"

Maybe newer GCCs are better?

-Scott