public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "bergner at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org> To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug rtl-optimization/109009] Shrink Wrap missed opportunity Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2023 19:57:16 +0000 [thread overview] Message-ID: <bug-109009-4-ywaC9GXB3H@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> (raw) In-Reply-To: <bug-109009-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109009 --- Comment #9 from Peter Bergner <bergner at gcc dot gnu.org> --- (In reply to Surya Kumari Jangala from comment #8) > However, while computing the save/restore cost, we are considering only the > memory move cost but not the BB frequency. I think it is important to > consider the frequency too. Yes, you'll need to factor in the BB frequency. Since the save/restore code will go into (at this point modulo shrink-wrapping later) the prologue and epilogue, you'll want something like: <prologue/epilogue freq> * 2 * "ira_memory_move_cost". I think the issue here, is that the "frequency" of the entry block isn't '1', but some larger value. I'm not 100% sure, but maybe you can use: REG_FREQ_FROM_BB (ENTRY_BLOCK_PTR_FOR_FN (cfun)) for the BB frequency of the prologue/epilogue? > We factor in the frequency when we compute the > savings on removed copies in allocno_copy_cost_saving(). In this routine, we > multiply the frequency with ira_register_move_cost. So why not factor in the > frequency for memory move cost? allocno_copy_cost_saving() is dealing with an actual copy instruction(s), so a real instruction in a specific BB, so it knows the frequency of the copy(ies). The ira_memory_move_cost is more of a HW cost of a generic load/store and it isn't tied to a specific instruction, so there is no frequency to scale by, so you'll need to do that manually here.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-06-23 19:57 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2023-03-03 14:04 [Bug rtl-optimization/109009] New: " jskumari at gcc dot gnu.org 2023-03-03 16:40 ` [Bug rtl-optimization/109009] " segher at gcc dot gnu.org 2023-03-05 5:23 ` jskumari at gcc dot gnu.org 2023-03-05 12:19 ` jskumari at gcc dot gnu.org 2023-03-05 15:01 ` segher at gcc dot gnu.org 2023-04-14 17:44 ` jskumari at gcc dot gnu.org 2023-05-10 11:51 ` jskumari at gcc dot gnu.org 2023-05-11 9:49 ` jskumari at gcc dot gnu.org 2023-06-23 15:03 ` jskumari at gcc dot gnu.org 2023-06-23 19:57 ` bergner at gcc dot gnu.org [this message] 2023-06-23 20:04 ` bergner at gcc dot gnu.org 2023-06-27 13:18 ` jskumari at gcc dot gnu.org 2023-06-27 13:19 ` jskumari 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-109009-4-ywaC9GXB3H@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).