[committed] libgcc CRIS: Define TARGET_HAS_NO_HW_DIVIDE

[committed] libgcc CRIS: Define TARGET_HAS_NO_HW_DIVIDE

[Hans-Peter Nilsson]

Not many targets define this besides msp430, pdp1, xtensa,
and arm compared to those that appear to unconditionally
have a hardware division instruction (also, pdp11 and
msp430 seem confused and should be empty instead of "1" and
"(!  TARGET_HWMULT)" - and having hardware multiplication
doesn't have a bearing anyway even if that worked; see
numbers below for an example).

Heads-up maintainers of ports without hardware division
(including conditionally, for multilibbed configurations)!

-- >8 --
With this, execution time for e.g. __moddi3 go from 59 to 40 cycles in
the "fast" case or from 290 to 200 cycles in the "slow" case (when the
!TARGET_HAS_NO_HW_DIVIDE variant calls division and modulus functions
for 32-bit SImode), as exposed by gcc.c-torture/execute/arith-rand-ll.c
compiled for -march=v10.

Unfortunately, it just puts a performance improvement "dent" of 0.07%
in a arith-rand-ll.c-based performance test - where all loops are also
reduced to 1/10.

The size of every affected libgcc function is reduced to less than
half and they are all now leaf functions.

	* config/cris/t-cris (HOST_LIBGCC2_CFLAGS): Add
	-DTARGET_HAS_NO_HW_DIVIDE.
---
 libgcc/config/cris/t-cris | 3 +++
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)

diff --git a/libgcc/config/cris/t-cris b/libgcc/config/cris/t-cris
index b582974a42ee..e0020294be96 100644
--- a/libgcc/config/cris/t-cris
+++ b/libgcc/config/cris/t-cris
@@ -8,3 +8,6 @@ $(LIB2ADD): $(srcdir)/config/cris/arit.c
 	echo "#define L$$name" > tmp-$@ \
 	&& echo '#include "$<"' >> tmp-$@ \
 	&& mv -f tmp-$@ $@
+
+# Use an appropriate implementation when implementing DImode division.
+HOST_LIBGCC2_CFLAGS += -DTARGET_HAS_NO_HW_DIVIDE
-- 
2.30.2

Re: [committed] libgcc CRIS: Define TARGET_HAS_NO_HW_DIVIDE

[Paul Koning]

> On Apr 26, 2023, at 8:05 PM, Hans-Peter Nilsson <hp@axis.com> wrote:
> 
> Not many targets define this besides msp430, pdp1, xtensa,
> and arm compared to those that appear to unconditionally
> have a hardware division instruction (also, pdp11 and
> msp430 seem confused and should be empty instead of "1"  ...

How so, "confused"?  The documentation says it should be defined, it doesn't say that it should be defined as empty.  What goes wrong if it's defined as 1 rather than empty?

The documentation is also somewhat misleading, because it says to define it if the hardware has no divide instruction.  The more accurate statement is that it should be defined if the hardware has no 64 / 32 bit divide hardware support.  pdp11.h points this out in a comment, because most pdp11s do have divide instructions but those are for 32 / 16 bits.

	paul

Re: [committed] libgcc CRIS: Define TARGET_HAS_NO_HW_DIVIDE

[Hans-Peter Nilsson]

> From: Paul Koning <paulkoning@comcast.net>
> Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2023 21:02:31 -0400

> > On Apr 26, 2023, at 8:05 PM, Hans-Peter Nilsson <hp@axis.com> wrote:
> > 
> > Not many targets define this besides msp430, pdp1, xtensa,
> > and arm compared to those that appear to unconditionally
> > have a hardware division instruction (also, pdp11 and
> > msp430 seem confused and should be empty instead of "1"  ...
> 
> How so, "confused"?  The documentation says it should be
> defined, it doesn't say that it should be defined as
> empty.  What goes wrong if it's defined as 1 rather than
> empty?

Only future edits, expecting action to follow as if it was a
non-zero expression like many of the target macros.

> The documentation is also somewhat misleading, because it
> says to define it if the hardware has no divide
> instruction.  The more accurate statement is that it
> should be defined if the hardware has no 64 / 32 bit
> divide hardware support.  pdp11.h points this out in a
> comment, because most pdp11s do have divide instructions
> but those are for 32 / 16 bits.

That might be true, and I've heard patches are welcome.

brgds, H-P