From: Segher Boessenkool <segher@kernel.crashing.org>
To: Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com>
Cc: Richard Biener <richard.guenther@gmail.com>,
Vladimir Makarov <vmakarov@redhat.com>,
Eric Botcazou <ebotcazou@adacore.com>,
GCC Patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>
Subject: Re: [patch] Fix PR rtl-optimization/87727
Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2018 19:53:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20181220193133.GV3803@gate.crashing.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20181220122357.GP23305@tucnak>
On Thu, Dec 20, 2018 at 01:23:57PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 20, 2018 at 01:15:53PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 20, 2018 at 12:43 PM Eric Botcazou <ebotcazou@adacore.com> wrote:
> > > this is a regression introduced on the SPARC by the somewhat controversial
> > > combiner change for hard registers: the compiler can no longer apply the leaf
> > > registers optimization to a small function so a register window is now used.
> > >
> > > The combiner change might be an overall win, but my understanding is that it's
> > > dependent on the target and SPARC seems to be in the wrong basket: almost all
> > > changes to the gcc.c-torture/compile testsuite at -O2 are pessimizations in
> > > the form of additional move instructions between registers on function entry.
> > >
> > > Clearly that's counter-productive for a LEAF_REGISTERS target like SPARC so
> > > the proposed fix is to re-enable hard register combining for leaf registers.
> > >
> > > Tested on SPARC/Solaris 11, OK for the mainline?
> >
> > This only affects xtensa besides sparc so unless Segher objects this is OK.
> >
> > Does this solve most of the pessimizations?
> >
> > Please add a testcase if it doesn't solve existing FAILs.
>
> Generally it would be better to deal with that in RA, but if Vlad doesn't
> have cycles for it right now, your hack isn't that bad.
It's not a terrible workaround, no. It looks like it will make some asm
once again fail though? If argument registers are forwarded to in the asm.
Segher
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-12-20 19:49 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-12-20 12:09 Eric Botcazou
2018-12-20 12:24 ` Richard Biener
2018-12-20 12:32 ` Jakub Jelinek
2018-12-20 19:53 ` Segher Boessenkool [this message]
2018-12-20 20:26 ` Eric Botcazou
2018-12-20 21:01 ` Segher Boessenkool
2018-12-20 21:40 ` Peter Bergner
2018-12-20 22:43 ` Jeff Law
2018-12-20 23:24 ` Peter Bergner
2018-12-21 15:50 ` Vladimir Makarov
2018-12-21 16:03 ` Richard Biener
2018-12-21 16:28 ` Segher Boessenkool
2018-12-21 17:36 ` Richard Biener
2018-12-21 17:42 ` Richard Biener
2018-12-21 18:02 ` Segher Boessenkool
2018-12-28 18:37 ` Peter Bergner
2019-01-04 16:53 ` Vladimir Makarov
2018-12-20 19:46 ` Eric Botcazou
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=20181220193133.GV3803@gate.crashing.org \
--to=segher@kernel.crashing.org \
--cc=ebotcazou@adacore.com \
--cc=gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=jakub@redhat.com \
--cc=richard.guenther@gmail.com \
--cc=vmakarov@redhat.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).