public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "vmakarov at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug rtl-optimization/64317] [5 Regression] Ineffective allocation of PIC base register
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2015 03:35:00 -0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <bug-64317-4-XkkVt7oQHy@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <bug-64317-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64317

--- Comment #9 from Vladimir Makarov <vmakarov at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Jeffrey A. Law from comment #7)
> Vlad,
> 
> What's the rationale behind the 50% probability cutoff for forming an EBB? 
> For the purposes of inheritance, ISTM you want the biggest EBBs possible to
> give you a maximal window in which to find an insn to inherit from?  Or is
> it the case that EBB formation impacts both spilling and inheritance in
> IRA/LRA?

I remember I tried different cut-off probabilities.  But LRA is changing
quickly, may be it is time to check this again.

I'd agree with you that for inheritance the bigger EBB, the better.  But there
are also optional reloads.  So if we had EBB consisting of BB1 and very low
probability BB2

BB1
    op with pseudo spilled
BB2
    the spilled pseudo use

optional reload and inheritance would transform it into

BB1
    load hr, pseudo spilled
    op with hr
BB2
    hr use

With 50% cut-off we would have

BB1
    op with pseudo spilled
BB2
    the spilled pseudo use

which is better code if probability BB1 >> BB2.


  parent reply	other threads:[~2015-02-13  3:35 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 25+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2014-12-15 15:03 [Bug rtl-optimization/64317] New: " izamyatin at gmail dot com
2014-12-15 15:07 ` [Bug rtl-optimization/64317] " rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-01-13 10:26 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-01-23 20:17 ` vmakarov at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-02-05 12:22 ` enkovich.gnu at gmail dot com
2015-02-06  9:52 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-02-06 10:06 ` enkovich.gnu at gmail dot com
2015-02-10 22:17 ` vmakarov at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-02-12 21:04 ` law at redhat dot com
2015-02-13  3:35 ` vmakarov at gcc dot gnu.org [this message]
2015-02-13  3:37 ` vmakarov at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-02-13  8:06 ` enkovich.gnu at gmail dot com
2015-02-19 13:18 ` law at redhat dot com
2015-02-19 16:21 ` vmakarov at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-02-20 23:24 ` law at redhat dot com
2015-02-21 20:10 ` vmakarov at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-02-27 23:07 ` vmakarov at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-03-03 19:08 ` law at redhat dot com
2015-03-03 22:39 ` law at redhat dot com
2015-03-04 17:39 ` law at redhat dot com
2015-03-05 15:37 ` vmakarov at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-03-05 20:01 ` law at redhat dot com
2015-03-09 17:12 ` law at redhat dot com
2015-03-23  7:53 ` law at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-03-23  7:54 ` law at redhat 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-64317-4-XkkVt7oQHy@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).