public inbox for gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Roger Sayle" <roger@nextmovesoftware.com>
To: "'Uros Bizjak'" <ubizjak@gmail.com>
Cc: <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>
Subject: RE: [x86_PATCH] peephole2 to resolve failure of gcc.target/i386/pr43644-2.c
Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2023 15:56:46 -0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <049301da3c01$f69b07c0$e3d11740$@nextmovesoftware.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAFULd4Yd-VrzZgynf+q8KQwY-pH2qb4HiykSSTiCRogRjrGyqg@mail.gmail.com>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2916 bytes --]


Hi Uros,

> From: Uros Bizjak <ubizjak@gmail.com>
> Sent: 28 December 2023 10:33
> On Fri, Dec 22, 2023 at 11:14 AM Roger Sayle <roger@nextmovesoftware.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > This patch resolves the failure of pr43644-2.c in the testsuite, a
> > code quality test I added back in July, that started failing as the
> > code GCC generates for 128-bit values (and their parameter passing)
> > has been in flux.  After a few attempts at tweaking pattern
> > constraints in the hope of convincing reload to produce a more
> > aggressive (but potentially
> > unsafe) register allocation, I think the best solution is to use a
> > peephole2 to catch/clean-up this specific case.
> >
> > Specifically, the function:
> >
> > unsigned __int128 foo(unsigned __int128 x, unsigned long long y) {
> >   return x+y;
> > }
> >
> > currently generates:
> >
> > foo:    movq    %rdx, %rcx
> >         movq    %rdi, %rax
> >         movq    %rsi, %rdx
> >         addq    %rcx, %rax
> >         adcq    $0, %rdx
> >         ret
> >
> > and with this patch/peephole2 now generates:
> >
> > foo:    movq    %rdx, %rax
> >         movq    %rsi, %rdx
> >         addq    %rdi, %rax
> >         adcq    $0, %rdx
> >         ret
> >
> > which I believe is optimal.
> 
> How about simply moving the assignment to the MSB in the split pattern after the
> LSB calculation:
> 
>   [(set (match_dup 0) (match_dup 4))
> -   (set (match_dup 5) (match_dup 2))
>    (parallel [(set (reg:CCC FLAGS_REG)
>                   (compare:CCC
>                     (plus:DWIH (match_dup 0) (match_dup 1))
>                     (match_dup 0)))
>              (set (match_dup 0)
>                   (plus:DWIH (match_dup 0) (match_dup 1)))])
> +   (set (match_dup 5) (match_dup 2))
>    (parallel [(set (match_dup 5)
>                   (plus:DWIH
>                     (plus:DWIH
> 
> There is an earlyclobber on the output operand, so we are sure that assignments
> to (op 0) and (op 5) won't clobber anything.
> cprop_hardreg pass will then do the cleanup for us, resulting in:
> 
> foo: movq    %rdi, %rax
>        addq    %rdx, %rax
>        movq    %rsi, %rdx
>        adcq    $0, %rdx
> 
> Uros.

I agree.  This is a much better fix.

This patch has been tested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu with make bootstrap
and make -k check, both with and without --target_board=unix{-m32}
with no new failures.  Ok for mainline?

2023-12-31  Uros Bizjak  <ubizjak@gmail.com>
            Roger Sayle  <roger@nextmovesoftware.com>

gcc/ChangeLog
        PR target/43644
        * config/i386/i386.md (*add<dwi>3_doubleword_concat_zext): Tweak
        order of instructions after split, to minimize number of moves.

gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
        PR target/43644
        * gcc.target/i386/pr43644-2.c: Expect 2 movq instructions.


Thanks again (and Happy New Year).
Roger
--


[-- Attachment #2: patchdw2.txt --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 1063 bytes --]

diff --git a/gcc/config/i386/i386.md b/gcc/config/i386/i386.md
index e862368..6671274 100644
--- a/gcc/config/i386/i386.md
+++ b/gcc/config/i386/i386.md
@@ -6412,13 +6412,13 @@
   "#"
   "&& reload_completed"
   [(set (match_dup 0) (match_dup 4))
-   (set (match_dup 5) (match_dup 2))
    (parallel [(set (reg:CCC FLAGS_REG)
 		   (compare:CCC
 		     (plus:DWIH (match_dup 0) (match_dup 1))
 		     (match_dup 0)))
 	      (set (match_dup 0)
 		   (plus:DWIH (match_dup 0) (match_dup 1)))])
+   (set (match_dup 5) (match_dup 2))
    (parallel [(set (match_dup 5)
 		   (plus:DWIH
 		     (plus:DWIH
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr43644-2.c b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr43644-2.c
index d470b0a..3316ac6 100644
--- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr43644-2.c
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr43644-2.c
@@ -6,4 +6,4 @@ unsigned __int128 foo(unsigned __int128 x, unsigned long long y)
   return x+y;
 }
 
-/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times "movq" 1 } } */
+/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times "movq" 2 } } */

  reply	other threads:[~2023-12-31 15:56 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2023-12-22 10:14 Roger Sayle
2023-12-28 10:33 ` Uros Bizjak
2023-12-31 15:56   ` Roger Sayle [this message]
2023-12-31 16:50     ` Uros Bizjak

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='049301da3c01$f69b07c0$e3d11740$@nextmovesoftware.com' \
    --to=roger@nextmovesoftware.com \
    --cc=gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org \
    --cc=ubizjak@gmail.com \
    /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).