public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org> To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug target/65847] SSE2 code for adding two structs is much worse at -O3 than at -O2 Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2015 14:03:00 -0000 [thread overview] Message-ID: <bug-65847-4-W7Zj5PhjXE@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> (raw) In-Reply-To: <bug-65847-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65847 Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Keywords| |missed-optimization Target| |x86_64-*-* Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed| |2015-04-22 CC| |rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org Ever confirmed|0 |1 --- Comment #1 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> --- Confirmed. The issue is that the vectorizer thinks x and y reside in memory and thus it vectorizes the code as <bb 2>: vect__2.5_11 = MEM[(double *)&x]; vect__3.8_13 = MEM[(double *)&y]; vect__4.9_14 = vect__2.5_11 + vect__3.8_13; MEM[(double *)&D.1840] = vect__4.9_14; return D.1840; which looks good. But now comes the ABI and passes x, y and the return value in registers ... But even the best vectorized sequence would have four stmts - two to pack arguments into vector registers, one add and one upack for the return value. Thus it seems the vectorizer should be informed of this ABI detail or simply as heuristic never consider function arguments "memory" it can perform vector loads on (which probably means to disable group analysis on them?). On i?86 with SSE2 we get movupd 8(%esp), %xmm1 movl 4(%esp), %eax movupd 24(%esp), %xmm0 addpd %xmm1, %xmm0 movups %xmm0, (%eax) vs. movsd 16(%esp), %xmm0 movl 4(%esp), %eax movsd 8(%esp), %xmm1 addsd 32(%esp), %xmm0 addsd 24(%esp), %xmm1 movsd %xmm0, 8(%eax) movsd %xmm1, (%eax) which eventually looks even profitable (with -mfpmath=sse). So a simple heuristic might pessimize things too much. Replicating calls.c code to compute how the arguments are passed sounds odd though... Eventually the target can pessimize the loads in the target cost model though (at least it can perform a more reasonable "heuristic").
next parent reply other threads:[~2015-04-22 14:03 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 2+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top [not found] <bug-65847-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> 2015-04-22 14:03 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org [this message] 2021-03-24 12:57 ` rguenth 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-65847-4-W7Zj5PhjXE@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).