From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-359798-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 3627 invoked by alias); 15 Jun 2011 12:02:48 -0000
Received: (qmail 3618 invoked by uid 22791); 15 Jun 2011 12:02:47 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.7 required=5.0	tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00,TW_DM
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from localhost (HELO gcc.gnu.org) (127.0.0.1)    by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 15 Jun 2011 12:02:31 +0000
From: "philb at gnu dot org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug target/49421] New: [arm] suboptimal choice of working regs
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: new
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: target
X-Bugzilla-Keywords:
X-Bugzilla-Severity: enhancement
X-Bugzilla-Who: philb at gnu dot org
X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields:
Message-ID: <bug-49421-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2011 12:02:00 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org
X-SW-Source: 2011-06/txt/msg01324.txt.bz2

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49421

           Summary: [arm] suboptimal choice of working regs
           Product: gcc
           Version: 4.6.0
            Status: UNCONFIRMED
          Severity: enhancement
          Priority: P3
         Component: target
        AssignedTo: unassigned@gcc.gnu.org
        ReportedBy: philb@gnu.org


If a leaf function requires one more working register than can be accomodated
in the call-clobbered set, gcc currently tends to push r4 and use that next. 
However, in the specific case of a leaf function, it would be better to push lr
and use that as the working register, since then the return can be done with a
single pop.  Consider the made-up example:

int f(int *a, int *b, int *c, int *d)
{
  int i;
  for (i = 0; i < 4; i++)
    if (a[i] || b[i] || c[i] || d[i])
      return 1;

  return 0;
}

which compiles (-march=armv6 -mtune=arm1136jf-s -O2) to:

f:
    @ args = 0, pretend = 0, frame = 0
    @ frame_needed = 0, uses_anonymous_args = 0
    @ link register save eliminated.
    mov    ip, #0
    str    r4, [sp, #-4]!
.L3:
    ldr    r4, [r0, ip]
    cmp    r4, #0
    bne    .L7
    ldr    r4, [r1, ip]
    cmp    r4, #0
    bne    .L7
    ldr    r4, [r2, ip]
    cmp    r4, #0
    bne    .L7
    ldr    r4, [r3, ip]
    add    ip, ip, #4
    cmp    r4, #0
    bne    .L7
    cmp    ip, #16
    bne    .L3
    mov    r0, r4
.L2:
    ldmfd    sp!, {r4}
    bx    lr
.L7:
    mov    r0, #1
    b    .L2

If lr had been pushed instead of r4 then the return could have simply been "pop
{lr}".

Also, since this is arm11, it is no more expensive to push two words than one. 
If the compiler had stacked both r4 and lr, it would have freed up an extra
register for the loop which would probably have allowed the loads to be
scheduled better.