From: Jeff Law <jeffreyalaw@gmail.com>
To: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] RISC-V: Produce better code with complex constants [PR95632] [PR106602]
Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2022 14:13:48 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1d4f48d9-479e-5ce1-8941-fd5386210278@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20221207205517.526182-1-rzinsly@ventanamicro.com>
On 12/7/22 13:55, Raphael Moreira Zinsly wrote:
> Due to RISC-V limitations on operations with big constants combine
> is failing to match such operations and is not being able to
> produce optimal code as it keeps splitting them. By pretending we
> can do those operations we can get more opportunities for
> simplification of surrounding instructions.
>
> 2022-12-06 Raphael Moreira Zinsly <rzinsly@ventanamicro.com>
> Jeff Law <jlaw@ventanamicro.com>
>
> gcc/Changelog:
> PR target/95632
> PR target/106602
> * config/riscv/riscv.md: New pattern to simulate complex
> const_int loads.
>
> gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
> * gcc.target/riscv/pr95632.c: New test.
> * gcc.target/riscv/pr106602.c: Likewise.
So to give a little background to others.
The core issue is that when we break down constants early, it can make
it difficult for combine to reconstruct the constant and simplify code
using the reconstructed constant -- you end up trying to do 4->3 or
worse combination sequences which aren't supported by the combiner.
Usually this kind of scenario is handled with a "bridge" pattern. Those
are generally defined as patterns that exist solely for combine and may
not correspond to any real instruction on the target. "bridge" patterns
are typically 2->1 or 3->1 combinations and are intermediate steps for
4->N or even larger combination opportunities. Obviously if the bridge
doesn't allow subsequent simplifications, then the bridge pattern must
generate correct code (either by generating suitable assembly or
splitting later).
Raphael's patch introduces a bridge pattern that pretends we can load up
splittable constants in a single insn. We restrict the bridge pattern
to be active from the point when CSE is no longer expected through the
combiner up to the first splitter pass (where we'll break it down again
if it's still in the IL).
So we get most of the benefit of splitting constants early (CSE, LICM,
etc) while also getting the benefits of splitting late (combine
simplifications).
Given I was working with Raphael on the patch, it's probably best for
someone else to do the review rather than me approving it :-)
Jeff
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-12-07 21:13 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-12-07 20:55 Raphael Moreira Zinsly
2022-12-07 21:13 ` Jeff Law [this message]
2022-12-07 21:30 ` Jakub Jelinek
2022-12-08 17:39 ` Palmer Dabbelt
2022-12-08 17:53 ` Palmer Dabbelt
2022-12-08 18:15 ` Jeff Law
2022-12-08 20:21 ` Palmer Dabbelt
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=1d4f48d9-479e-5ce1-8941-fd5386210278@gmail.com \
--to=jeffreyalaw@gmail.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).