public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "vvv at ru dot ru" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug target/39942] Nonoptimal code - leaveq; xchg   %ax,%ax; retq
Date: Wed, 13 May 2009 11:43:00 -0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20090513114243.11848.qmail@sourceware.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <bug-39942-17483@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>



------- Comment #19 from vvv at ru dot ru  2009-05-13 11:42 -------
(In reply to comment #18)
> No, .p2align is the right thing to do, given that GCC doesn't have 100%
> accurate information about instruction sizes (for e.g. inline asms it can't
> have, for
> stuff where branch shortening can decrease the size doesn't have it until the
> shortening branch phase which is too late for this machine reorg, and in other
> cases the lengths are just upper bounds).  Say .p2align 16,,5 says
> insert a nop up to 5 bytes if you can reach the 16-byte boundary with it,
> otherwise don't insert anything.  But that necessarily means that there were
> less than 11 bytes in the same 16 byte page and if the lower bound insn size
> estimation determined that in 11 bytes you can't have 3 branch changing
> instructions, you are fine.  Breaking of fused compare and jump (32-bit code
> only) is unfortunate, but inserting it before the cmp would mean often
> unnecessarily large padding.

You are rigth, if padding required for every 16-byte page with 4 branches on
it. But Intel writes about "16-byte chunk", not "16-byte page".

Quote from Intel 64 and IA-32 Architectures Optimization Reference Manual:

Assembly/Compiler Coding Rule 10. (M impact, L generality) Do not put
more than four branches in a 16-byte chunk.

IMHO, here chunk - memory range from x to x+10h, where x - _any_ address. 


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39942


  parent reply	other threads:[~2009-05-13 11:43 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 54+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2009-04-28 12:20 [Bug c/39942] New: " vvv at ru dot ru
2009-04-28 13:42 ` [Bug target/39942] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-04-28 17:05 ` vvv at ru dot ru
2009-04-28 17:10 ` vvv at ru dot ru
2009-04-28 17:15 ` vvv at ru dot ru
2009-04-28 17:37 ` ubizjak at gmail dot com
2009-04-28 21:19 ` vvv at ru dot ru
2009-04-28 21:23 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-04-28 21:47 ` ubizjak at gmail dot com
2009-04-28 21:53 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-04-28 21:54 ` ubizjak at gmail dot com
2009-04-29  7:46 ` vvv at ru dot ru
2009-04-29  7:55 ` vvv at ru dot ru
2009-04-29  9:32 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-04-29 10:13 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-04-29 19:17 ` vvv at ru dot ru
2009-04-30  9:07 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-05-12 16:41 ` vvv at ru dot ru
2009-05-13  8:31 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-05-13 11:43 ` vvv at ru dot ru [this message]
2009-05-13 13:32 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-05-13 17:13 ` vvv at ru dot ru
2009-05-13 18:22 ` ubizjak at gmail dot com
2009-05-13 18:34 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-05-13 18:45 ` hjl dot tools at gmail dot com
2009-05-13 18:57 ` vvv at ru dot ru
2009-05-13 19:06 ` vvv at ru dot ru
2009-05-13 19:09 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-05-13 19:19 ` vvv at ru dot ru
2009-05-13 21:44 ` hjl dot tools at gmail dot com
2009-05-14  9:01 ` vvv at ru dot ru
2009-05-14 15:16 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-05-14 15:58 ` hjl dot tools at gmail dot com
2009-05-14 18:37 ` hjl dot tools at gmail dot com
2009-05-14 19:44 ` vvv at ru dot ru
2009-05-15  2:23 ` hjl dot tools at gmail dot com
2009-05-15  4:32 ` hjl dot tools at gmail dot com
2009-05-15  7:56 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-05-15 12:11 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-05-15 12:12 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-05-15 14:35 ` hjl dot tools at gmail dot com
2009-05-15 16:25 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-05-15 18:18 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-05-15 18:23 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-05-15 23:06 ` hjl dot tools at gmail dot com
2009-05-16  6:38 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-05-16  7:10 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-05-16  7:12 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-05-18 17:21 ` hjl at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-05-20 21:38 ` vvv at ru dot ru
2009-05-20 22:09 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-05-21 13:22 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-05-21 13:26 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org
     [not found] <bug-39942-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
2020-04-14 21:20 ` peter at cordes dot ca

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=20090513114243.11848.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).