public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug target/114591] [12/13/14 Regression] register allocators introduce an extra load operation since gcc-12
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2024 07:08:47 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <bug-114591-4-bBlf449tA3@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <bug-114591-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114591
--- Comment #14 from Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #13)
> (In reply to Hongtao Liu from comment #12)
> > short a;
> > short c;
> > short d;
> > void
> > foo (short b, short f)
> > {
> > c = b + a;
> > d = f + a;
> > }
> >
> > foo(short, short):
> > addw a(%rip), %di
> > addw a(%rip), %si
> > movw %di, c(%rip)
> > movw %si, d(%rip)
> > ret
> >
> > this one is bad since gcc10.1 and there's no subreg, The problem is if the
> > operand is used by more than 1 insn, and they all support separate m
> > constraint, mem_cost is quite small(just 1, reg move cost is 2), and this
> > makes RA more inclined to propagate memory across insns. I guess RA assumes
> > the separate m means the insn only support memory_operand?
>
> I don't see this as problematic. IIRC, there was a discussion in the past
> that a couple (two?) memory accesses from the same location close to each
> other can be faster (so, -O2, not -Os) than preloading the value to the
> register first.
Someone just filed a similar issue to the above testcase (the one in comment
#12) as https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114688 :).
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-04-11 7:08 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-04-04 18:57 [Bug rtl-optimization/114591] New: rtl-reload " absoler at smail dot nju.edu.cn
2024-04-04 19:03 ` [Bug target/114591] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
2024-04-04 19:07 ` [Bug target/114591] [12/13/14 Regression] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
2024-04-05 2:32 ` [Bug target/114591] [12/13/14 Regression] register allocators " law at gcc dot gnu.org
2024-04-08 15:02 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2024-04-10 7:51 ` ubizjak at gmail dot com
2024-04-10 8:17 ` liuhongt at gcc dot gnu.org
2024-04-10 8:30 ` liuhongt at gcc dot gnu.org
2024-04-10 8:36 ` ubizjak at gmail dot com
2024-04-10 8:40 ` ubizjak at gmail dot com
2024-04-10 8:47 ` ubizjak at gmail dot com
2024-04-10 8:52 ` liuhongt at gcc dot gnu.org
2024-04-10 9:07 ` ubizjak at gmail dot com
2024-04-10 9:12 ` liuhongt at gcc dot gnu.org
2024-04-11 6:33 ` liuhongt at gcc dot gnu.org
2024-04-11 6:54 ` ubizjak at gmail dot com
2024-04-11 7:08 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org [this message]
2024-04-11 7:28 ` liuhongt at gcc dot gnu.org
2024-04-11 7:37 ` liuhongt at gcc dot gnu.org
2024-06-20 9:15 ` [Bug target/114591] [12/13/14/15 " 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-114591-4-bBlf449tA3@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).