public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "paolo dot bonzini at lu dot unisi dot ch" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug target/19653] x87 reg allocated for constants for -mfpmath=sse
Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2005 06:52:00 -0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20050921065206.8381.qmail@sourceware.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20050127083359.19653.uros@kss-loka.si>


------- Additional Comments From paolo dot bonzini at lu dot unisi dot ch  2005-09-21 06:51 -------
Subject: Re:  x87 reg allocated for constants for -mfpmath=sse


>Note that in this pattern cost computation of MMX_REGS  are all ignored ('*' in front of y). So, the cost 
>which is computed is for 'r' which is GENERAL_REGS. This cost is too high and eventually results in 
>memory cost to be lower than register cost. I tried the following simple patch as experiment and got all 
>the performance back (it is now comparable with 4.0). Note that in this patch, I removed the '*' in the 
>2nd alternative so cost of keeping the operand in mmx_regs class is factored in. This resulted in a 
>lower cost than that of memory. Is this the way to go? This is just an experiment which seems to work. 
>  
>
I think it makes sense.  The x86 back-end is playing too many tricks 
(such as the # classes) with the register allocator and regclass 
especially, and they are biting back.

Still, I'd rather hear from an expert as to why the classes were written 
like this.

Paolo


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19653


  parent reply	other threads:[~2005-09-21  6:52 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2005-01-27  8:34 [Bug target/19653] New: " uros at kss-loka dot si
2005-01-27  8:35 ` [Bug target/19653] " uros at kss-loka dot si
2005-01-27  9:14 ` uros at kss-loka dot si
2005-01-27 13:28 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-01-28  6:24 ` uros at kss-loka dot si
2005-02-08 16:46 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-02-09 13:11 ` uros at kss-loka dot si
2005-06-19 14:58 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-07-13 11:33 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-07-13 12:06 ` bonzini at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-07-13 14:03 ` matz at suse dot de
2005-07-13 14:16 ` bonzini at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-07-13 14:43 ` bonzini at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-07-14  8:55 ` bonzini at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-07-27 15:57 ` bonzini at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-08-01 20:56 ` dalej at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-08-02 22:58 ` dalej at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-08-22 22:09 ` bonzini at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-09-21  6:52 ` paolo dot bonzini at lu dot unisi dot ch [this message]
2005-09-21 17:23 ` dalej at gcc dot gnu dot org
     [not found] <bug-19653-1649@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
2005-11-22  9:21 ` bonzini at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-04-03 11:20 ` bonzini at gnu dot org
2006-04-03 11:20 ` bonzini at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-04-18  8:23 ` bonzini at gcc dot gnu dot org

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20050921065206.8381.qmail@sourceware.org \
    --to=gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org \
    --cc=gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).