public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "randolph at tausq dot org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug rtl-optimization/17264] [hppa] Missing address increment optimization for fp load/stores
Date: Sun, 24 Sep 2006 23:48:00 -0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20060924234811.26582.qmail@sourceware.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <bug-17264-581@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>



------- Comment #3 from randolph at tausq dot org  2006-09-24 23:48 -------
Subject: Re:  [hppa] Missing address increment
 optimization for fp load/stores

>> gcc starting from 4.0 produces this:
>>
>> .L3:
>>         fldds -16(%r26),%fr22
>>         fldds -8(%r26),%fr23
>>         fldds 0(%r26),%fr24
>>         fldds 8(%r26),%fr25
>>         ldo 32(%r26),%r26
>>         fstds %fr22,-16(%r25)
>>         fstds %fr23,-8(%r25)
>>         fstds %fr24,0(%r25)
>>         fstds %fr25,8(%r25)
>>         b .L3
>>
>> which I suspect is actually better, since it avoids dependencies between the
>> loads. But I'm not familiar with hppa, can anybody comment?
> 
> It looks close to optimal to me.  The code is better than that generated
> by 3.4.x or HP cc.  Using the auto-increment forms would allow elimination
> of the two ldo instructions to increment r25 and r26.

Yeah, this looks pretty good. I've been told that not using the 
autoincrement forms might be even better as it avoids interlocks between 
successive instructions. The ldo insn just gets pipelined so it doesn't 
necessarily slow things down.

I'll mark this bug as resolved.

thanks
randolph


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17264


  parent reply	other threads:[~2006-09-24 23:48 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
     [not found] <bug-17264-581@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
2006-09-24 19:52 ` falk at debian dot org
2006-09-24 22:15 ` dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca
2006-09-24 23:48 ` randolph at tausq dot org [this message]
2006-09-24 23:49 ` tausq at debian dot org
2004-09-01 18:22 [Bug rtl-optimization/17264] New: " tausq at debian dot org
2004-09-01 18:53 ` [Bug rtl-optimization/17264] " danglin 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=20060924234811.26582.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).