public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "vmakarov at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org> To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug rtl-optimization/102147] IRA dependent on 32-bit vs 64-bit pointer size Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2021 18:11:23 +0000 [thread overview] Message-ID: <bug-102147-4-HNAupdO91R@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> (raw) In-Reply-To: <bug-102147-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102147 --- Comment #7 from Vladimir Makarov <vmakarov at gcc dot gnu.org> --- I've been thinking about ways to fix this problem but only come to the following patch. The patch results in working mostly the same for 64-bit targets and different for 32-bit targets. In any case the profitability is only an estimation so I think the patch is ok. Avoiding 4 stage bootstrap is more important than a bit slower RA on 32-bit targets (which is questionable) on few border cases. I am going to commit the patch this Friday. --- a/gcc/ira-build.c +++ b/gcc/ira-build.c @@ -629,7 +629,7 @@ ior_hard_reg_conflicts (ira_allocno_t a, const_hard_reg_set set) bool ira_conflict_vector_profitable_p (ira_object_t obj, int num) { - int nw; + int nbytes; int max = OBJECT_MAX (obj); int min = OBJECT_MIN (obj); @@ -638,9 +638,14 @@ ira_conflict_vector_profitable_p (ira_object_t obj, int num) in allocation. */ return false; - nw = (max - min + IRA_INT_BITS) / IRA_INT_BITS; - return (2 * sizeof (ira_object_t) * (num + 1) - < 3 * nw * sizeof (IRA_INT_TYPE)); + nbytes = (max - min) / 8 + 1; + STATIC_ASSERT (sizeof (ira_object_t) <= 8); + /* Don't use sizeof (ira_object_t), use constant 8. Size of ira_object_t (a + pointer) is different on 32-bit and 64-bit targets. Usage sizeof + (ira_object_t) can result in different code generation by GCC built as 32- + and 64-bit program. In any case the profitability is just an estimation + and border cases are rare. */ + return (2 * 8 /* sizeof (ira_object_t) */ * (num + 1) < 3 * nbytes); } /* Allocates and initialize the conflict vector of OBJ for NUM
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-09-22 18:11 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2021-08-31 15:13 [Bug rtl-optimization/102147] New: IRA dependent on 32-bit vs 64-bit register size dje at gcc dot gnu.org 2021-08-31 15:16 ` [Bug rtl-optimization/102147] " dje at gcc dot gnu.org 2021-08-31 15:24 ` dje at gcc dot gnu.org 2021-09-01 8:34 ` [Bug rtl-optimization/102147] IRA dependent on 32-bit vs 64-bit pointer size rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2021-09-01 8:36 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2021-09-01 13:52 ` dje at gcc dot gnu.org 2021-09-01 14:21 ` vmakarov at gcc dot gnu.org 2021-09-22 18:11 ` vmakarov at gcc dot gnu.org [this message] 2021-09-24 15:15 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org 2023-10-12 4:17 ` bergner at gcc dot gnu.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=bug-102147-4-HNAupdO91R@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ \ --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: linkBe 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).