From: Jeff Law <law@redhat.com>
To: 瞿仙淼 <xianmiao_qu@c-sky.com>
Cc: Sandra Loosemore <sandra@codesourcery.com>,
"gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org" <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>,
Yunhai Shang <yunhai_shang@c-sky.com>
Subject: Re: [2/5] C-SKY port: Backend implementation
Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2018 22:28:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1632a78d-4244-fe7b-91ae-ffdd1dd8cf60@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <56004587-F43E-4004-B618-B819CF7A5E4A@c-sky.com>
On 07/26/2018 12:06 AM, 枚脛脧脡铆碌 wrote:
>
>> 脭脷 2018脛锚7脭脗25脠脮拢卢脡脧脦莽5:24拢卢Jeff Law <law@redhat.com> 脨麓碌脌拢潞
>>
>> On 07/24/2018 12:18 PM, Sandra Loosemore wrote:
>>> On 07/24/2018 09:45 AM, Jeff Law wrote:
>>>> On 07/23/2018 10:21 PM, Sandra Loosemore wrote:
>>>> I'm not a big fan of more awk code, but I'm not going to object to it :-)
>>>>
>>>> Why does the port have its own little pass for condition code
>>>> optimization (cse_cc)? What is it doing that can't be done with our
>>>> generic optimizers?
>>>
>>> This pass was included in the initial patch set we got from C-SKY, and
>>> as it didn't seem to break anything I left it in. Perhaps C-SKY can
>>> provide a testcase that demonstrates why it's still useful in the
>>> current version of GCC; otherwise we can remove this from the initial
>>> port submission and restore it later if some performance analysis shows
>>> it is still worthwhile.
>> FWIW it looks like we model CC setting on just a few insns, (add,
>> subtract) so I'd be surprised if this little mini pass found much. I'd
>> definitely like to hear from the csky authors here.
>>
>> Alternately, you could do add some instrumentation to flag when it
>> triggers, take a test or two that does, reduce it and we can then look
>> at the key RTL sequences and see what the pass is really doing.
>>
>
> I wrote a case to reproduce this problem on C-SKY. C code is as follows:
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> int e1, e2;
>
> void func (int a, int b, int c, int d, int f, int g)
> {
> e1 = a > b ? f : g;
> e2 = a > b ? c : d;
>
> return;
> }
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> compile to assembler with option 隆掳-O3 -S隆卤 :
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> func:
> cmplt a1, a0
> ld.w t1, (sp, 0)
> ld.w t0, (sp, 4)
> movt t0, t1
> cmplt a1, a0
> movt a3, a2
> lrw a1, e2
> lrw a2, e1
> st.w a3, (a1, 0)
> st.w t0, (a2, 0)
> rts
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> There is an extra 隆掳cmplt a1, a0" in the above code without cse_cc. This situation mainly occurs when a relatively short branch jump is converted into a conditional execution instruction. And the CSE pass can not reduce the same conditional comparison instruction . Here is the rtx sequence after 隆掳cse2隆卤 pass.
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> (insn 28 13 29 2 (set (reg:CC 33 c)
> (gt:CC (reg/v:SI 77 [ a ])
> (reg/v:SI 78 [ b ]))) func.c:5 1099 {*cmpgtsi}
> (nil))
> (insn 29 28 30 2 (set (reg/v:SI 82 [ g ])
> (if_then_else:SI (eq (reg:CC 33 c)
> (const_int 0 [0]))
> (reg/v:SI 82 [ g ])
> (reg/v:SI 81 [ f ]))) func.c:5 983 {movf}
> (expr_list:REG_DEAD (reg/v:SI 81 [ f ])
> (expr_list:REG_DEAD (reg:CC 33 c)
> (nil))))
> (insn 30 29 31 2 (set (reg:CC 33 c)
> (gt:CC (reg/v:SI 77 [ a ])
> (reg/v:SI 78 [ b ]))) func.c:5 1099 {*cmpgtsi}
> (expr_list:REG_DEAD (reg/v:SI 78 [ b ])
> (expr_list:REG_DEAD (reg/v:SI 77 [ a ])
> (nil))))
> (insn 31 30 18 2 (set (reg/v:SI 80 [ d ])
> (if_then_else:SI (eq (reg:CC 33 c)
> (const_int 0 [0]))
> (reg/v:SI 80 [ d ])
> (reg/v:SI 79 [ c ]))) func.c:5 983 {movf}
> (expr_list:REG_DEAD (reg/v:SI 79 [ c ])
> (expr_list:REG_DEAD (reg:CC 33 c)
> (nil))))
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> It doesn't seem to check the same conditional comparison instruction .So I wrote this to solve this problem, but I am not sure if this is the best way : )
>
> PS, the same conditional comparison instruction cannot be reduced with the latest version gcc with C-SKY because I just insert the 隆掳cse_cc隆卤 after 隆掳cse1隆卤, when I insert after 隆掳cse2隆卤, this problem can be solved very well.
I think the cse_cc pass is really just working around one or more bugs
in CSE and/or a backend bug. The RTL above clearly shows a common
subexpression that is not eliminated by CSE.
What CSE should be trying to do is changing the second and third
occurrences of (gt:CC (reg 77) (reg 78)) with (reg 33) which would
create nop-sets which would be subsequently deleted. I suspect you do
not have an insn which matches that nop set of the CC register. If you
fix that I suspect CSE will work better and eliminate the need for your
cse_cc pass.
jeff
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-08-02 22:28 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 30+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-07-24 4:17 [0/5] C-SKY port Sandra Loosemore
2018-07-24 4:20 ` [1/5] C-SKY port: Configury Sandra Loosemore
2018-07-24 15:09 ` Jeff Law
2018-07-24 4:21 ` [2/5] C-SKY port: Backend implementation Sandra Loosemore
2018-07-24 15:45 ` Jeff Law
2018-07-24 18:19 ` Sandra Loosemore
2018-07-24 21:25 ` Jeff Law
2018-07-25 0:17 ` Sandra Loosemore
2018-07-25 4:50 ` Jeff Law
2018-07-25 13:17 ` Paul Koning
2018-07-25 14:54 ` Sandra Loosemore
2018-07-26 6:07 ` 瞿仙淼
2018-07-28 1:49 ` Sandra Loosemore
2018-08-02 22:33 ` Jeff Law
2018-08-02 22:28 ` Jeff Law [this message]
2018-08-03 7:58 ` Yunhai
2018-08-03 16:26 ` Sandra Loosemore
2018-07-24 4:23 ` [3/5] C-SKY port: Documentation Sandra Loosemore
2018-07-24 15:10 ` Jeff Law
2018-07-24 4:25 ` [4/5] C-SKY port: Testsuite Sandra Loosemore
2018-07-24 15:10 ` Jeff Law
2018-07-24 4:26 ` [5/5] C-SKY port: libgcc Sandra Loosemore
2018-07-24 15:12 ` Jeff Law
2018-07-24 18:10 ` Segher Boessenkool
2018-07-24 18:19 ` Sandra Loosemore
2018-07-24 19:46 ` Segher Boessenkool
2018-07-24 15:23 ` [0/5] C-SKY port Sandra Loosemore
2018-07-26 23:04 ` Joseph Myers
2018-07-30 16:59 ` Sandra Loosemore
2018-08-01 14:28 ` 瞿仙淼
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=1632a78d-4244-fe7b-91ae-ffdd1dd8cf60@redhat.com \
--to=law@redhat.com \
--cc=gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=sandra@codesourcery.com \
--cc=xianmiao_qu@c-sky.com \
--cc=yunhai_shang@c-sky.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).