From: Jeff Law <jeffreyalaw@gmail.com>
To: Dimitrije Milosevic <dimitrije.milosevic@syrmia.com>,
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
Cc: djordje.todorovic@syrmia.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] ivopts: Revert computation of address cost complexity.
Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2022 17:02:08 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <3c50de1f-c00b-9f8a-a604-a71bc546f1c2@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20221021135203.626255-2-dimitrije.milosevic@syrmia.com>
On 10/21/22 07:52, Dimitrije Milosevic wrote:
> From: Dimitrije Milošević <dimitrije.milosevic@syrmia.com>
>
> This patch reverts the computation of address cost complexity
> to the legacy one. After f9f69dd, complexity is calculated
> using the valid_mem_ref_p target hook. Architectures like
> Mips only allow BASE + OFFSET addressing modes, which in turn
> prevents the calculation of complexity for other addressing
> modes, resulting in non-optimal candidate selection.
>
> gcc/ChangeLog:
>
> * tree-ssa-address.cc (multiplier_allowed_in_address_p): Change
> to non-static.
> * tree-ssa-address.h (multiplier_allowed_in_address_p): Declare.
> * tree-ssa-loop-ivopts.cc (compute_symbol_and_var_present): Reintroduce.
> (compute_min_and_max_offset): Likewise.
> (get_address_cost): Revert
> complexity calculation.
THe part I don't understand is, if you only have BASE+OFF, why does
preventing the calculation of more complex addressing modes matter? ie,
what's the point of computing the cost of something like base + off +
scaled index when the target can't utilize it?
jeff
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-10-27 23:02 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-10-21 13:52 [PATCH 0/2] ivopts: Fix candidate selection for architectures with limited addressing modes Dimitrije Milosevic
2022-10-21 13:52 ` [PATCH 1/2] ivopts: Revert computation of address cost complexity Dimitrije Milosevic
2022-10-25 11:08 ` Richard Biener
2022-10-25 13:00 ` Dimitrije Milosevic
2022-10-27 23:02 ` Jeff Law [this message]
2022-10-28 6:43 ` Dimitrije Milosevic
2022-10-28 7:00 ` Richard Biener
2022-10-28 13:39 ` Dimitrije Milosevic
2022-11-01 18:46 ` Jeff Law
2022-11-02 8:40 ` Dimitrije Milosevic
2022-11-07 13:35 ` Richard Biener
2022-12-15 15:26 ` Dimitrije Milosevic
2022-12-16 9:58 ` Richard Biener
2022-12-16 11:37 ` Dimitrije Milosevic
2022-12-16 11:58 ` Richard Biener
2022-10-21 13:52 ` [PATCH 2/2] ivopts: Consider number of invariants when calculating register pressure Dimitrije Milosevic
2022-10-25 11:07 ` Richard Biener
2022-10-25 13:00 ` Dimitrije Milosevic
2022-10-28 7:38 ` Richard Biener
2022-10-28 13:39 ` Dimitrije Milosevic
2022-11-07 12:56 ` Richard Biener
2024-03-18 11:28 [PATCH 1/2] ivopts: Revert computation of address cost complexity Aleksandar Rakic
2024-03-18 20:27 Aleksandar Rakic
2024-04-15 13:30 ` Aleksandar Rakic
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=3c50de1f-c00b-9f8a-a604-a71bc546f1c2@gmail.com \
--to=jeffreyalaw@gmail.com \
--cc=dimitrije.milosevic@syrmia.com \
--cc=djordje.todorovic@syrmia.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).