i386: Fix up *<dwi>3_doubleword_mask [PR105911]

Another regression caused by my recent patch.

This time because define_insn_and_split only requires that the
constant mask is const_int_operand.  When it was only SImode,
that wasn't a problem, HImode neither, but for DImode if we need
to and the shift count we might run into a problem that it isn't
a representable signed 32-bit immediate.

But, we don't really care about the upper bits of the mask, so
we can just mask the CONST_INT with the mode mask.

2022-06-13  Jakub Jelinek  <jakub@redhat.com>

	PR target/105911
	* config/i386/i386.md (*ashl<dwi>3_doubleword_mask,
	*<insn><dwi>3_doubleword_mask): Use operands[3] masked with
	(<MODE_SIZE> * BITS_PER_UNIT) - 1 as AND operand instead of
	operands[3] unmodified.

	* gcc.dg/pr105911.c: New test.

diff --git a/gcc/config/i386/i386.md b/gcc/config/i386/i386.md
index 5b53841..3093cb5 100644 (file)
--- a/gcc/config/i386/i386.md
+++ b/gcc/config/i386/i386.md
@@ -11937,7 +11937,8 @@
       rtx xops[3];
       xops[0] = gen_reg_rtx (GET_MODE (operands[2]));
       xops[1] = operands[2];
-      xops[2] = operands[3];
+      xops[2] = GEN_INT (INTVAL (operands[3])
+                        & ((<MODE_SIZE> * BITS_PER_UNIT) - 1));
       ix86_expand_binary_operator (AND, GET_MODE (operands[2]), xops);
       operands[2] = xops[0];
     }
@@ -12905,7 +12906,8 @@
       rtx xops[3];
       xops[0] = gen_reg_rtx (GET_MODE (operands[2]));
       xops[1] = operands[2];
-      xops[2] = operands[3];
+      xops[2] = GEN_INT (INTVAL (operands[3])
+                        & ((<MODE_SIZE> * BITS_PER_UNIT) - 1));
       ix86_expand_binary_operator (AND, GET_MODE (operands[2]), xops);
       operands[2] = xops[0];
     }

diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr105911.c b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr105911.c
new file mode 100644 (file)
index 0000000..55df3f1
--- /dev/null
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr105911.c
@@ -0,0 +1,16 @@
+/* PR target/105911 */
+/* { dg-do compile { target int128 } } */
+/* { dg-options "-O2" } */
+
+__int128 v, x;
+unsigned __int128 w;
+
+void bar (__int128, __int128);
+
+void
+foo (void)
+{
+  bar (v /= v, v >> (v &= 0x100000001));
+  bar (w /= w, w >> (w &= 0x300000003));
+  bar (x /= x, x << (x &= 0x700000007));
+}