public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "jiwang at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org> To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug target/62173] [5.0 regression] [AArch64] Performance regression due to r213488 Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2014 23:01:00 -0000 [thread overview] Message-ID: <bug-62173-4-mDF0AZd2xH@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> (raw) In-Reply-To: <bug-62173-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62173 --- Comment #10 from Jiong Wang <jiwang at gcc dot gnu.org> --- Finished a further investigation, looks like the simplest fix to genrate optimized code for case A is to add one more optimization case in "eliminate_regs_in_insn". currently we only optimize "eliminate_reg + const_offset" if (plus_src && CONST_INT_P (XEXP (plus_src, 1))) while for those arch, like AArch64, Mips, ARM, which support base + offset addressing mode, the following pattern which is normally for array element address, like A[I]: reg T <- eliminate_reg + reg I (which hold value I) reg D <- MEM(reg T, offset) we should eliminate into (fold two constant offset immediately): reg T <- reg_after_eliminate + reg I reg D <- MEM(reg T, offset + eliminate_offset) instead of reg S <- reg_after_eliminate + eliminate_offset reg T <- reg S + reg I reg D <- MEM(reg T, offset) because there are high dependence between D and T, we just need to check NEXT_INSN when doing the elimination to detect whether there are such pattern. I'd try this approach which is quite clean, hopefully AArch64, ARM, MIPS could all be fixed.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-11-24 23:01 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 40+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2014-08-18 16:12 [Bug target/62173] New: " spop at gcc dot gnu.org 2014-08-18 16:39 ` [Bug target/62173] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org 2014-08-18 19:13 ` spop at gcc dot gnu.org 2014-08-19 1:37 ` amker at gcc dot gnu.org 2014-10-28 11:28 ` [Bug target/62173] [5.0 regression] " jiwang at gcc dot gnu.org 2014-11-14 9:37 ` jiwang at gcc dot gnu.org 2014-11-17 2:14 ` amker.cheng at gmail dot com 2014-11-24 12:15 ` jiwang at gcc dot gnu.org 2014-11-24 12:38 ` jiwang at gcc dot gnu.org 2014-11-24 13:06 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2014-11-24 23:01 ` jiwang at gcc dot gnu.org [this message] 2014-11-26 10:54 ` [Bug target/62173] [5.0 regression] [AArch64] Can't ivopt array base address while ARM can jiwang at gcc dot gnu.org 2014-11-27 9:35 ` jiwang at gcc dot gnu.org 2014-11-27 12:00 ` [Bug tree-optimization/62173] [5.0 regression] 64bit Arch can't ivopt while 32bit Arch can rguenther at suse dot de 2014-11-27 12:16 ` rguenther at suse dot de 2014-11-27 13:34 ` jiwang at gcc dot gnu.org 2015-01-23 17:33 ` jiwang at gcc dot gnu.org 2015-01-26 10:30 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2015-01-26 11:10 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2015-01-26 13:48 ` ramana at gcc dot gnu.org 2015-01-26 14:19 ` amker at gcc dot gnu.org 2015-01-26 14:51 ` rguenther at suse dot de 2015-01-26 14:53 ` rguenther at suse dot de 2015-01-26 15:03 ` amker at gcc dot gnu.org 2015-01-26 15:38 ` jiwang at gcc dot gnu.org 2015-01-27 3:21 ` amker at gcc dot gnu.org 2015-01-27 7:56 ` amker at gcc dot gnu.org 2015-01-27 9:11 ` rguenther at suse dot de 2015-01-28 18:26 ` LpSolit at netscape dot net 2015-01-29 6:48 ` amker at gcc dot gnu.org 2015-01-30 6:42 ` amker at gcc dot gnu.org 2015-01-30 12:32 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2015-02-05 7:27 ` amker at gcc dot gnu.org 2015-03-11 17:30 ` [Bug tree-optimization/62173] [5 Regression] " jiwang at gcc dot gnu.org 2015-03-11 17:46 ` jiwang at gcc dot gnu.org 2015-03-11 17:52 ` [Bug tree-optimization/62173] [5/6 " jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2015-03-13 8:34 ` amker at gcc dot gnu.org 2015-06-02 3:34 ` amker at gcc dot gnu.org 2015-06-03 3:56 ` amker at gcc dot gnu.org 2015-07-22 11:44 ` jiwang 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-62173-4-mDF0AZd2xH@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: linkBe 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).