public inbox for gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: James Greenhalgh <james.greenhalgh@arm.com>
To: Jackson Woodruff <jackson.woodruff@foss.arm.com>
Cc: Wilco Dijkstra <Wilco.Dijkstra@arm.com>,
	GCC Patches	<gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>,
	"richard.sandiford@linaro.org"	<richard.sandiford@linaro.org>,
	nd <nd@arm.com>, Richard Earnshaw	<Richard.Earnshaw@arm.com>
Subject: Re: [AArch64, PATCH] Improve Neon store of zero
Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2017 16:28:00 -0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170912162806.GB33912@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <fb16672a-dc83-9de6-d788-795140f044c3@foss.arm.com>

On Wed, Sep 06, 2017 at 10:02:52AM +0100, Jackson Woodruff wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> I've attached a new patch that addresses some of the issues raised with 
> my original patch.
> 
> On 08/23/2017 03:35 PM, Wilco Dijkstra wrote:
> > Richard Sandiford wrote:
> >>
> >> Sorry for only noticing now, but the call to aarch64_legitimate_address_p
> >> is asking whether the MEM itself is a legitimate LDP/STP address.  Also,
> >> it might be better to pass false for strict_p, since this can be called
> >> before RA.  So maybe:
> >>
> >>     if (GET_CODE (operands[0]) == MEM
> >> 	&& !(aarch64_simd_imm_zero (operands[1], <MODE>mode)
> >> 	     && aarch64_mem_pair_operand (operands[0], <MODE>mode)))
> 
> There were also some issues with the choice of mode for the call the 
> aarch64_mem_pair_operand.
> 
> For a 128-bit wide mode, we want to check `aarch64_mem_pair_operand 
> (operands[0], DImode)` since that's what the stp will be.
> 
> For a 64-bit wide mode, we don't need to do that check because a normal
> `str` can be issued.
> 
> I've updated the condition as such.
> 
> > 
> > Is there any reason for doing this check at all (or at least this early during
> > expand)?
> 
> Not doing this check means that the zero is forced into a register, so 
> we then carry around a bit more RTL and rely on combine to merge things.
> 
> > 
> > There is a similar issue with this part:
> > 
> >   (define_insn "*aarch64_simd_mov<mode>"
> >     [(set (match_operand:VQ 0 "nonimmediate_operand"
> > -		"=w, m,  w, ?r, ?w, ?r, w")
> > +		"=w, Ump,  m,  w, ?r, ?w, ?r, w")
> > 
> > The Ump causes the instruction to always split off the address offset. Ump
> > cannot be used in patterns that are generated before register allocation as it
> > also calls laarch64_legitimate_address_p with strict_p set to true.
> 
> I've changed the constraint to a new constraint 'Umq', that acts the 
> same as Ump, but calls aarch64_legitimate_address_p with strict_p set to 
> false and uses DImode for the mode to pass.

This looks mostly OK to me, but this conditional:

> +  if (GET_CODE (operands[0]) == MEM
> +      && !(aarch64_simd_imm_zero (operands[1], <MODE>mode)
> +	   && ((GET_MODE_SIZE (<MODE>mode) == 16
> +		&& aarch64_mem_pair_operand (operands[0], DImode))
> +	       || GET_MODE_SIZE (<MODE>mode) == 8)))

Has grown a bit too big in such a general pattern to live without a comment
explaining what is going on.

> +(define_memory_constraint "Umq"
> +  "@internal
> +   A memory address which uses a base register with an offset small enough for
> +   a load/store pair operation in DI mode."
> +   (and (match_code "mem")
> +	(match_test "aarch64_legitimate_address_p (DImode, XEXP (op, 0),
> +						   PARALLEL, 0)")))

And here you want 'false' rather than '0'.

I'll happily merge the patch with those changes, please send an update.

Thanks,
James


> 
> ChangeLog:
> 
> gcc/
> 
> 2017-08-29  Jackson Woodruff  <jackson.woodruff@arm.com>
> 
> 	* config/aarch64/constraints.md (Umq): New constraint.
> 	* config/aarch64/aarch64-simd.md (*aarch64_simd_mov<mode>):
> 	Change to use Umq.
> 	(mov<mode>): Update condition.
> 
> gcc/testsuite
> 
> 2017-08-29  Jackson Woodruff  <jackson.woodruff@arm.com>
> 
> 	* gcc.target/aarch64/simd/vect_str_zero.c:
> 	Update testcase.

  reply	other threads:[~2017-09-12 16:28 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2017-08-23 15:06 Wilco Dijkstra
2017-09-06  9:03 ` Jackson Woodruff
2017-09-12 16:28   ` James Greenhalgh [this message]
2017-09-13 16:35     ` Jackson Woodruff
2017-09-13 16:51       ` James Greenhalgh
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2017-08-10 13:38 Jackson Woodruff
2017-08-11 15:16 ` Richard Earnshaw (lists)
2017-08-16 16:01   ` Jackson Woodruff
2017-08-17 13:56     ` Richard Earnshaw (lists)
2017-08-23 14:46     ` Richard Sandiford

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=20170912162806.GB33912@arm.com \
    --to=james.greenhalgh@arm.com \
    --cc=Richard.Earnshaw@arm.com \
    --cc=Wilco.Dijkstra@arm.com \
    --cc=gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org \
    --cc=jackson.woodruff@foss.arm.com \
    --cc=nd@arm.com \
    --cc=richard.sandiford@linaro.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).