public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "amker.cheng at gmail dot com" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug rtl-optimization/50749] Auto-inc-dec does not find subsequent contiguous mem accesses
Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2013 09:06:00 -0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <bug-50749-4-Dzw5lweGlS@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <bug-50749-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50749

bin.cheng <amker.cheng at gmail dot com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |amker.cheng at gmail dot com

--- Comment #15 from bin.cheng <amker.cheng at gmail dot com> ---
There must be another scenario for the example, and in this case example:

int test_0 (char* p, int c)
{
  int r = 0;
  r += *p++;
  r += *p++;
  r += *p++;
  return r;
}

should be translated into sth like:
  //...
  ldrb [rx]
  ldrb [rx+1]
  ldrb [rx+2]
  add rx, rx, #3
  //...
This way all loads are independent and can be issued on super scalar machine. 
Actuall for targets like arm which supports post-increment constant (other than
size of memory access), it can be further changed into:
  //...
  ldrb [rx], #3
  ldrb [rx-2]
  ldrb [rx-1]
  //...
For now auto-increment pass can't do this optimization.  I once have a patch
for this but benchmark shows the case is not common.

This case is common especially after loop unrolling and rtl passes deliberately
break down long dependence of RX, which I think is right.


  parent reply	other threads:[~2013-09-30  9:06 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 23+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2011-10-16 20:29 [Bug target/50749] New: SH Target: Post-increment addressing used only for first memory access oleg.endo@t-online.de
2011-10-16 23:34 ` [Bug target/50749] " kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-10-17  0:33 ` kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-10-19  0:00 ` oleg.endo@t-online.de
2011-10-19 21:37 ` kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-10-30 12:37 ` oleg.endo@t-online.de
2011-10-30 13:54 ` oleg.endo@t-online.de
2011-10-30 23:37 ` kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-11-28 22:54 ` oleg.endo@t-online.de
2011-11-29  0:25 ` kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-12-30  2:14 ` oleg.endo@t-online.de
2011-12-30  3:36 ` kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-06-12  7:10 ` [Bug middle-end/50749] Auto-inc-dec does not find subsequent contiguous mem accesses olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-08-23 14:17 ` [Bug rtl-optimization/50749] " olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-06-22 12:22 ` olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-09-30  9:06 ` amker.cheng at gmail dot com [this message]
2013-10-03 10:47 ` olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-12-06 20:28 ` olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-12-24 22:55 ` steven at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-05-22 13:57 ` olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-09-17  9:00 ` urjaman at gmail dot com
2015-09-17 14:26 ` olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-09-17 19:45 ` urjaman at gmail dot com

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-50749-4-Dzw5lweGlS@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).