public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "law at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug rtl-optimization/110163] New: [14 Regression] Comparing against a constant string is inefficient on some targets
Date: Wed, 07 Jun 2023 20:33:11 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <bug-110163-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> (raw)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110163

            Bug ID: 110163
           Summary: [14 Regression] Comparing against a constant string is
                    inefficient on some targets
           Product: gcc
           Version: 14.0
            Status: UNCONFIRMED
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P3
         Component: rtl-optimization
          Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
          Reporter: law at gcc dot gnu.org
  Target Milestone: ---

Comparing against a constant string is expanded by inline_string_cmp and on
some targets the generated code can be inefficient.  This can be seen in
spec2017's omnetpp benchmark, particularly when the inline string comparison
limits are increased.

The problem is the expansion code arranges to do all the arithmetic and tests
in SImode.  On RV64 this introduces a sign extension for each test  due to how
RV64 expresses 32bit ops.

It would be better to do all the computations in word_mode, then convert the
final result to SImode, at least for RV64 and likely for other targets.

I experimented with starting to build out cost checks to determine what mode to
use for the internal computations.  That ran afoul of x86 where the cost of a
byte load is different than the cost of an extended byte load, even though they
use the exact same instruction.

There's also a need to cost out the computations, test & branch in the
different modes as well once the x86 hurdle is behind us.

I've set work on this aside for now.  But the discussion can be found in these
two threads:

https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2023-June/620601.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2023-June/620577.html

#include <string.h>
int
foo (char *x)
{
   return strcmp (x, "lowerLayout");
}

Compiled with -O2 --param builtin-string-cmp-inline-length=100 on rv64 should
show the issue.

             reply	other threads:[~2023-06-07 20:33 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2023-06-07 20:33 law at gcc dot gnu.org [this message]
2023-06-09  6:52 ` [Bug rtl-optimization/110163] " rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-06-09 14:49 ` law at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-10-17 10:57 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2024-05-07  7:40 ` [Bug rtl-optimization/110163] [14/15 " rguenth 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-110163-4@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).