public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "roger at nextmovesoftware dot com" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug rtl-optimization/102840] [12 Regression] gcc.target/i386/pr22076.c by r12-4475
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2021 14:48:40 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <bug-102840-4-gJRBRQUKBa@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <bug-102840-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102840

Roger Sayle <roger at nextmovesoftware dot com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Last reconfirmed|                            |2021-10-19
             Status|UNCONFIRMED                 |NEW
     Ever confirmed|0                           |1

--- Comment #1 from Roger Sayle <roger at nextmovesoftware dot com> ---
I believe this test case is poorly written, and not correctly testing the
original issue in PR target/22076 which concerned suboptimal moving of
arguments via memory (fixed by prohibiting reload using mmx registers).

Prior to my patch, with -m32 -O2 -fomit-frame-pointer -mmmx -mno-sse2, GCC
generated:

test:   movq    .LC1, %mm0
        paddb   .LC0, %mm0
        movq    %mm0, x
        ret

.x:     .zero 8
.LC0:   .byte   1
        .byte   2
        .byte   3
        .byte   4
        .byte   5
        .byte   6
        .byte   7
        .byte   8
.LC1:   .byte   11
        .byte   22
        .byte   33
        .byte   44
        .byte   55
        .byte   66
        .byte   77
        .byte   88

which indeed doesn't use movl, and requires two movq.

After my patch, we now generate the much more efficient (dare I say optimal):
test:   movl    $807671820, %eax
        movl    $1616136252, %edx
        movl    %eax, x
        movl    %edx, x+4
        ret

which has evaluated the _mm_add_pi8 at compile-time, and effectively memsets x
to the correct value in the minimum possible number of cycles.  In fact,
failing to evaluate this at compile-time is a regression since v4.1 (according
to godbolt)

[p.s. I predict other platforms might also notice changes in their testsuites,
as the middle-end now generates more efficient instruction sequences].

  parent reply	other threads:[~2021-10-19 14:48 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-10-19 13:39 [Bug rtl-optimization/102840] New: " hjl.tools at gmail dot com
2021-10-19 14:12 ` [Bug rtl-optimization/102840] " rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-10-19 14:48 ` roger at nextmovesoftware dot com [this message]
2021-10-19 15:36 ` hjl.tools at gmail dot com
2021-10-19 17:42 ` roger at nextmovesoftware dot com
2021-10-19 18:08 ` hjl.tools at gmail dot com
2021-10-21 18:58 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-10-21 18:59 ` ubizjak at gmail dot com

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-102840-4-gJRBRQUKBa@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: 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).