From: Alan Modra <amodra@gmail.com>
To: David Edelsohn <dje.gcc@gmail.com>
Cc: GCC Patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>
Subject: Re: [RS6000] Fix PR61098, Poor code setting count register
Date: Wed, 14 May 2014 09:56:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20140514095629.GN5162@bubble.grove.modra.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAGWvnymJhh1iR4wQW7GOBkAd=C6RH9eHMOJe8JimNrBsN3MOHg@mail.gmail.com>
Hi David,
On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 11:46:20PM -0400, David Edelsohn wrote:
> Danny may have re-organized the code, but I thought that it originally
> came from Tom Rixx, if not earlier.
OK, I'm not trying to apportion blame. My name is on plenty of dodgy
code in the rs6000 backend too. :)
> I seem to remember problems in the past with late creation of TOC
> entries for constants causing problems, so it was easier to fall back
> to materializing all integer constants inline. I don't remember the
> PRs, but I think there were issues with creating a TOC if the late
> constant were the only TOC reference, or maybe the issue was buying a
> stack frame to materialize the TOC/GOT for a late constant. And
> maximum 5 instruction sequence is not really bad relative to a load
> from the TOC (even with medium model / data in TOC). There are a lot
> of trade-offs with respect to I$ expansion versus the load hitting in
> the L1 D$.
Sure, but Steve will tell you that the 5 instruction sequence is both
slower due to all the dependent ops, and results in larger code+data
size. We definitely want to avoid it if possible, and pr67836 shows a
case taken from glibc math library code where there should be no
problem in using the TOC.
> Alpha emit_set_const does limit the number of instructions, but that
> is a search for a more efficient sequence than the naive sequence. The
> Alpha splitters use alpha_split_const_mov(), which tries
> alpha_emit_set_const() for an efficient sequence and then falls back
> to alpha_emit_set_long_const() for a naive sequence. Alpha uses PLUS
> instead of IOR because of the way its ISA works.
> alpha_emit_set_long_const() always will materialize the constant and
> does not check for a maximum number of instructions. This is why it's
> comment says "fall back to straight forward decomposition".
>
> However, alpha_emit_set_long_const() and alpha_split_const_mov() can
> fail, presumably because emit_move_insn() fails, not because of
> reaching a maximum number of instructions.
>
> alpha_legitimate_constant_p() rejecs expensive constants early. Once
> the splitter is invoked, it always tries to materialize the constant,
> but the splitter apparently can fail for other reasons.
No, that is wrong. alpha_emit_set_const does *not* always try to
materialize the constant inline. It does so for constants that need
more than three instructions only when TARGET_BUILD_CONSTANTS.
> I don't mind exploring the benefits of tighening up
> rs6000_legitimate_const(), but I'm not sure it's an obvious win,
> especially with the potential failure corner cases.
Yes, those potential corner cases have me worried too..
> However, I want to have a better understanding about the part of the
> patch that removes the FAIL path from the splitters.
That part was really quite simple. I was removing dead code.
rs6000_emit_set_const has never returned anything but DEST, right from
the initial commit. It can't be called with DEST == NULL, so
"dest = gen_reg_rtx (mode)" is also dead code.
However, I retracted that patch because I now think
rs6000_emit_set_const should in fact sometimes result in the splitter
failing, exactly as is done in the alpha port.
--
Alan Modra
Australia Development Lab, IBM
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-05-14 9:56 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-05-08 1:49 Alan Modra
2014-05-08 13:48 ` David Edelsohn
2014-05-09 2:41 ` Alan Modra
2014-05-11 2:24 ` David Edelsohn
2014-05-11 22:53 ` Alan Modra
2014-05-11 23:39 ` Alan Modra
2014-05-14 3:05 ` Alan Modra
2014-05-14 3:46 ` David Edelsohn
2014-05-14 9:56 ` Alan Modra [this message]
2014-05-14 21:27 ` David Edelsohn
2014-05-23 15:23 ` Alan Modra
2014-05-24 16:26 ` David Edelsohn
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=20140514095629.GN5162@bubble.grove.modra.org \
--to=amodra@gmail.com \
--cc=dje.gcc@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).