From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from resqmta-c1p-024063.sys.comcast.net (resqmta-c1p-024063.sys.comcast.net [IPv6:2001:558:fd00:56::8]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 210EA3858C54 for ; Thu, 11 May 2023 16:55:30 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org 210EA3858C54 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=comcast.net Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=comcast.net Received: from resomta-c1p-023810.sys.comcast.net ([96.102.18.241]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 256/256 bits) (Client did not present a certificate) by resqmta-c1p-024063.sys.comcast.net with ESMTP id x6PYp0y9Sq529x9ZhpS31C; Thu, 11 May 2023 16:55:29 +0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=comcast.net; s=20190202a; t=1683824129; bh=TMxY2Ehs6tGnZqaLaVcDT65TxLSiDU5o9nDEunMaf2g=; h=Received:Received:Content-Type:Mime-Version:Subject:From:Date: Message-Id:To:Xfinity-Spam-Result; b=zfQlLCzBVJtBn5+GzIlxzo0TO6B9j6YDw78uY1LR18ZwmIPKQhcpesdTj6dy5pLB0 pzQte1SFPgQGwBQtTxVRN+m2jPEFwNqYb7XBmahz482XeJvTh3dXuR9/H9O5bv34qs XIEQUBH0IYIGc6wCtCAU1Ef5ptkyhNvw2mJhTqip+rjXMqPBqg+CcEW0y4afq8pWRK vqfXBkwWhFdGpLZNoH4BE6QO0nNYAS2tdJXS3cFryNgIxuCxFYHonvA1HqDMDR7F3E we7MUo6E82BT6SWOsIOVTE11ZJB4L6T3pvAZLtiuwdWKxwBre8f5uTZEz4b3S5MpO8 chIgQXJsX4iiw== Received: from smtpclient.apple ([73.60.223.101]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 256/256 bits) (Client did not present a certificate) by resomta-c1p-023810.sys.comcast.net with ESMTPSA id x9Zep2fsW5mypx9ZfpC1ei; Thu, 11 May 2023 16:55:28 +0000 X-Xfinity-VAAS: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvhedrfeegkedguddtkecutefuodetggdotefrodftvfcurfhrohhfihhlvgemucevohhmtggrshhtqdftvghsihdpqfgfvfdppffquffrtefokffrnecuuegrihhlohhuthemuceftddunecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmdenucfjughrpegtggfuhfgjffevgffkfhfvofesthhqmhdthhdtvdenucfhrhhomheprfgruhhlucfmohhnihhnghcuoehprghulhhkohhnihhnghestghomhgtrghsthdrnhgvtheqnecuggftrfgrthhtvghrnhepveekveelffeliefgiedufeehgeejtdfhgedujeehueekiedtgfetffevgffggfdvnecukfhppeejfedriedtrddvvdefrddutddunecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehhvghlohepshhmthhptghlihgvnhhtrdgrphhplhgvpdhinhgvthepjeefrdeitddrvddvfedruddtuddpmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpehprghulhhkohhnihhnghestghomhgtrghsthdrnhgvthdpnhgspghrtghpthhtohephedprhgtphhtthhopehhphesrgigihhsrdgtohhmpdhrtghpthhtoheprhhoghgvrhesnhgvgihtmhhovhgvshhofhhtfigrrhgvrdgtohhmpdhrtghpthhtohepjhgvfhhfrhgvhigrlhgrfiesghhmrghilhdrtghomhdprhgtphhtthhopehgtggtqdhprghttghhvghssehgtggtrdhgnhhurdhorhhgpdhrtghpthhtohepshgvghhhvghrsehkvghrnhgvlhdrtghrrghshhhinhhgrdhorhhg X-Xfinity-VMeta: sc=-100.00;st=legit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3696.120.41.1.3\)) Subject: Re: [committed] Convert xstormy16 to LRA From: Paul Koning In-Reply-To: <20230511150540.9606F20420@pchp3.se.axis.com> Date: Thu, 11 May 2023 12:55:26 -0400 Cc: Roger Sayle , jeffreyalaw@gmail.com, gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, segher@kernel.crashing.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <367738E7-2E0E-4406-8BBC-6DC70EA491DD@comcast.net> References: <009601d97c85$de708170$9b518450$@nextmovesoftware.com> <20230511150540.9606F20420@pchp3.se.axis.com> To: Hans-Peter Nilsson X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3696.120.41.1.3) X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,FREEMAIL_FROM,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS,TXREP,T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on server2.sourceware.org List-Id: > On May 11, 2023, at 11:05 AM, Hans-Peter Nilsson via Gcc-patches = wrote: >=20 > ... > Yes, very interesting. Thank you for sharing this. I've > seen regressions with LRA for CRIS too, for > "double-register-sized" types, which for CRIS, a 32-bit > target, translates to 64-bit types (DFmode and DImode), and > where LRA does a much worse job than reload; spills a lot > more often to stack, even after trying every > register-allocation-related hook I found (and also an LRA > patch which helped only by a fraction, but regressed results > on x86_64-linux, so let's quickly forget it again). That observation makes me a bit worried. While CRIS may not be a = priority platform, that description makes it sound like a case that = would be significant in any 32 bit platform, which would include = priority ones like i386 and ARM. If that's true, I wonder about dropping Reload. While I understand it's = been years since LRA was first introduced, wouldn't we even so want to = go by the rule that a newer replacement mechanism doesn't replace an = older one until the replacement demonstrates comparable or better = output compared with the older one? paul