From: "Bin Cheng" <bin.cheng@arm.com>
To: <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>
Subject: [PATCH AArch64]Handle REG+REG+CONST and REG+NON_REG+CONST in legitimize address
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2015 09:21:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <000001d12119$49548570$dbfd9050$@arm.com> (raw)
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2286 bytes --]
Hi,
GIMPLE IVO needs to call backend interface to calculate costs for addr
expressions like below:
FORM1: "r73 + r74 + 16380"
FORM2: "r73 << 2 + r74 + 16380"
They are invalid address expression on AArch64, so will be legitimized by
aarch64_legitimize_address. Below are what we got from that function:
For FORM1, the address expression is legitimized into below insn sequence
and rtx:
r84:DI=r73:DI+r74:DI
r85:DI=r84:DI+0x3000
r83:DI=r85:DI
"r83 + 4092"
For FORM2, the address expression is legitimized into below insn sequence
and rtx:
r108:DI=r73:DI<<0x2
r109:DI=r108:DI+r74:DI
r110:DI=r109:DI+0x3000
r107:DI=r110:DI
"r107 + 4092"
So the costs computed are 12/16 respectively. The high cost prevents IVO
from choosing right candidates. Besides cost computation, I also think the
legitmization is bad in terms of code generation.
The root cause in aarch64_legitimize_address can be described by it's
comment:
/* Try to split X+CONST into Y=X+(CONST & ~mask), Y+(CONST&mask),
where mask is selected by alignment and size of the offset.
We try to pick as large a range for the offset as possible to
maximize the chance of a CSE. However, for aligned addresses
we limit the range to 4k so that structures with different sized
elements are likely to use the same base. */
I think the split of CONST is intended for REG+CONST where the const offset
is not in the range of AArch64's addressing modes. Unfortunately, it
doesn't explicitly handle/reject "REG+REG+CONST" and "REG+REG<<SCALE+CONST"
when the CONST are in the range of addressing modes. As a result, these two
cases fallthrough this logic, resulting in sub-optimal results.
It's obvious we can do below legitimization:
FORM1:
r83:DI=r73:DI+r74:DI
"r83 + 16380"
FORM2:
r107:DI=0x3ffc
r106:DI=r74:DI+r107:DI
REG_EQUAL r74:DI+0x3ffc
"r106 + r73 << 2"
This patch handles these two cases as described.
Bootstrap & test on AArch64 along with other patch. Is it OK?
2015-11-04 Bin Cheng <bin.cheng@arm.com>
Jiong Wang <jiong.wang@arm.com>
* config/aarch64/aarch64.c (aarch64_legitimize_address): Handle
address expressions like REG+REG+CONST and REG+NON_REG+CONST.
[-- Attachment #2: aarch64_legitimize_addr-20151104.txt --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 1944 bytes --]
diff --git a/gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64.c b/gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64.c
index 5c8604f..47875ac 100644
--- a/gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64.c
+++ b/gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64.c
@@ -4710,6 +4710,51 @@ aarch64_legitimize_address (rtx x, rtx /* orig_x */, machine_mode mode)
{
HOST_WIDE_INT offset = INTVAL (XEXP (x, 1));
HOST_WIDE_INT base_offset;
+ rtx op0 = XEXP (x,0);
+
+ if (GET_CODE (op0) == PLUS)
+ {
+ rtx op0_ = XEXP (op0, 0);
+ rtx op1_ = XEXP (op0, 1);
+
+ /* RTX pattern in the form of (PLUS (PLUS REG, REG), CONST) will
+ reach here, the 'CONST' may be valid in which case we should
+ not split. */
+ if (REG_P (op0_) && REG_P (op1_))
+ {
+ machine_mode addr_mode = GET_MODE (op0);
+ rtx addr = gen_reg_rtx (addr_mode);
+
+ rtx ret = plus_constant (addr_mode, addr, offset);
+ if (aarch64_legitimate_address_hook_p (mode, ret, false))
+ {
+ emit_insn (gen_adddi3 (addr, op0_, op1_));
+ return ret;
+ }
+ }
+ /* RTX pattern in the form of (PLUS (PLUS REG, NON_REG), CONST)
+ will reach here. If (PLUS REG, NON_REG) is valid addr expr,
+ we split it into Y=REG+CONST, Y+NON_REG. */
+ else if (REG_P (op0_) || REG_P (op1_))
+ {
+ machine_mode addr_mode = GET_MODE (op0);
+ rtx addr = gen_reg_rtx (addr_mode);
+
+ /* Switch to make sure that register is in op0_. */
+ if (REG_P (op1_))
+ std::swap (op0_, op1_);
+
+ rtx ret = gen_rtx_fmt_ee (PLUS, addr_mode, addr, op1_);
+ if (aarch64_legitimate_address_hook_p (mode, ret, false))
+ {
+ addr = force_operand (plus_constant (addr_mode,
+ op0_, offset),
+ NULL_RTX);
+ ret = gen_rtx_fmt_ee (PLUS, addr_mode, addr, op1_);
+ return ret;
+ }
+ }
+ }
/* Does it look like we'll need a load/store-pair operation? */
if (GET_MODE_SIZE (mode) > 16
next reply other threads:[~2015-11-17 9:21 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-11-17 9:21 Bin Cheng [this message]
2015-11-17 10:08 ` James Greenhalgh
2015-11-19 2:32 ` Bin.Cheng
2015-11-20 8:31 ` Bin.Cheng
2015-11-20 17:39 ` Richard Earnshaw
2015-11-24 3:23 ` Bin.Cheng
2015-11-24 9:59 ` Richard Earnshaw
2015-11-24 10:21 ` Richard Earnshaw
2015-11-24 13:13 ` Jiong Wang
2015-11-24 13:29 ` Richard Earnshaw
2015-11-24 14:39 ` Jiong Wang
2015-11-24 14:55 ` Richard Earnshaw
2015-12-01 3:19 ` Bin.Cheng
2015-12-01 10:25 ` Richard Earnshaw
2015-12-03 5:26 ` Bin.Cheng
2015-12-03 10:26 ` Richard Earnshaw
2015-12-04 3:18 ` Bin.Cheng
2015-11-25 4:53 ` Bin.Cheng
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='000001d12119$49548570$dbfd9050$@arm.com' \
--to=bin.cheng@arm.com \
--cc=gcc-patches@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).