public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "already5chosen at yahoo dot com" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug target/105617] [12/13/14 Regression] Slp is maybe too aggressive in some/many cases
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2023 14:56:08 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <bug-105617-4-VNADzZo6Ab@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <bug-105617-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105617

--- Comment #21 from Michael_S <already5chosen at yahoo dot com> ---
(In reply to Mason from comment #20)
> Doh! You're right.
> I come from a background where overlapping/aliasing inputs are heresy,
> thus got blindsided :(
> 
> This would be the optimal code, right?
> 
> add4i:
> # rdi = dst, rsi = a, rdx = b
> 	movq	 0(%rdx), %r8
> 	movq	 8(%rdx), %rax
> 	movq	16(%rdx), %rcx
> 	movq	24(%rdx), %rdx
> 	addq	 0(%rsi), %r8
> 	adcq	 8(%rsi), %rax
> 	adcq	16(%rsi), %rcx
> 	adcq	24(%rsi), %rdx
> 	movq	%r8,   0(%rdi)
> 	movq	%rax,  8(%rdi)
> 	movq	%rcx, 16(%rdi)
> 	movq	%rdx, 24(%rdi)
> 	ret
> 

If one does not care deeply about latency (which is likely for function that
stores result into memory) then that looks good enough.
But if one does care deeply then I'd expect interleaved loads, as in first 8
lines of code generated by trunk, to produce slightly lower latency on majority
of modern CPUs.

      parent reply	other threads:[~2023-06-16 14:56 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2022-05-16 12:08 [Bug target/105617] New: Regression in code generation for _addcarry_u64() already5chosen at yahoo dot com
2022-05-16 12:13 ` [Bug target/105617] [12/13 regressi] Slp is maybe too aggressive in some/many cases pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-05-16 12:14 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-05-16 12:15 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-05-16 12:38 ` [Bug target/105617] [12/13 Regression] " already5chosen at yahoo dot com
2022-05-16 13:02 ` already5chosen at yahoo dot com
2022-05-16 14:08 ` already5chosen at yahoo dot com
2022-05-17  2:47 ` crazylht at gmail dot com
2022-05-17  3:29 ` crazylht at gmail dot com
2022-05-17  3:37 ` crazylht at gmail dot com
2022-05-17  6:48 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-05-17  9:17 ` already5chosen at yahoo dot com
2022-05-17  9:25 ` already5chosen at yahoo dot com
2022-05-19  8:05 ` crazylht at gmail dot com
2022-07-26 11:22 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-07-26 11:22 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-07-29 13:21 ` already5chosen at yahoo dot com
2023-05-08 12:24 ` [Bug target/105617] [12/13/14 " rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-06-01  7:58 ` slash.tmp at free dot fr
2023-06-07 23:16 ` already5chosen at yahoo dot com
2023-06-13 14:54 ` slash.tmp at free dot fr
2023-06-16 14:56 ` already5chosen at yahoo dot com [this message]

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-105617-4-VNADzZo6Ab@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).