public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug target/104049] [12 Regression] vec_select to subreg lowering causes superfluous moves
Date: Fri, 01 Apr 2022 11:29:40 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <bug-104049-4-58FXzNdd91@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <bug-104049-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104049

--- Comment #14 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org <rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
FWIW, I agree with Vlad that this isn't an RA problem.  Some aarch64
instruction patterns are accepting operands that will inevitably
require a reload.

In principle we could tighten the predicates so that we reject
these kinds of subreg for operands that only allow GPRs (not FPRs).
But that just shifts the problem elsewhere.  Some of these patterns
do support w->w, so the net effect would be to lose out on some useful
combinations without fixing the actual problem.

I guess we should use an STV-like pass to do vector vs. scalar
instruction selection, with that pass being the one that forces
separate moves when (subreg:xI (reg:VnxI R) 0) occurs in a
“scalar” instruction.  Would be good to make it relatively
target-independent though.

So IMO we should fix RTL representation problem that Andrew pointed
out in comment 7 as the P1 fix, then accept the other cases as a P2
regression caused by bigger improvements elsewhere.

  parent reply	other threads:[~2022-04-01 11:29 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2022-01-16 12:19 [Bug rtl-optimization/104049] New: " tnfchris at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-01-17  2:20 ` [Bug rtl-optimization/104049] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-01-18 13:48 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-01-18 17:03 ` vmakarov at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-01-18 17:39 ` tnfchris at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-01-19  3:28 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-01-19  3:30 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-01-19  3:39 ` [Bug target/104049] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-02-01 11:26 ` tnfchris at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-03-25 12:00 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-03-25 14:00 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-03-25 14:42 ` tnfchris at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-03-25 14:50 ` tnfchris at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-03-25 14:52 ` tnfchris at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-04-01 11:29 ` rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org [this message]
2022-04-04 14:06 ` tnfchris at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-04-07  7:29 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-04-07  7:32 ` tnfchris at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-04-26  6:55 ` [Bug target/104049] [12/13/14 " rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-07-27  9:22 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2024-02-21  6:37 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
2024-05-21  9:10 ` [Bug target/104049] [12/13/14/15 " jakub 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-104049-4-58FXzNdd91@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).