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/54133] regrename introduces additional dependencies
Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2012 07:50:00 -0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <bug-54133-4-5wGu6fCUmv@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <bug-54133-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54133

--- Comment #2 from amker.cheng <amker.cheng at gmail dot com> 2012-08-01 07:49:51 UTC ---
I measured this kind of regression in benchmark CSiBE on
arm-none-eabi/cortex-m0 with Os optimization. Turns out most of the them are
relate to paramter/return register moving, like the reported case.

The logic is:
STEP1: At prologue or after call_insn, gcc saves parameter(or return) registers
in pseudos, then load it from the pseudo when need to use it(like calling
another function with the paramter).
For example:
{
  rx <- r0
  ...
  ...
  r0 <- rx
  call another function
}

If instructions between saving and using do not clobber paramter register, the
hard register can be propagated to remove one redundant move instruction.

STEP2: copy propagation before IRA just ignore hard registers, so usually these
can only be done in regcprop.c after IRA.

BUT,
STEP3: register renaming does not honor any propagation opportunities and may
using r0 to rename, which introduces additional dependencies. It's a common
regression because regrename always select renaming register from 0 to
FIRST_PSEUOD_REG.


In experiment, if I disable r0/r1 from renaming, most regressions observed in
CSiBE are gone.

So how should this be fixed? Thanks.


  parent reply	other threads:[~2012-08-01  7:50 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2012-07-31  6:59 [Bug rtl-optimization/54133] New: " amker.cheng at gmail dot com
2012-07-31  8:01 ` [Bug rtl-optimization/54133] " steven at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-08-01  7:50 ` amker.cheng at gmail dot com [this message]
2012-08-01 10:14 ` steven at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-08-01 11:58 ` steven at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-08-01 13:49 ` amker.cheng at gmail dot com
2012-08-02  7:22 ` ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-08-02 10:18 ` amker.cheng at gmail dot com
2012-09-25  7:45 ` amker.cheng 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-54133-4-5wGu6fCUmv@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).