On 2011/3/30 05:28 PM, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
> 
> On Wed, 2011-03-30 at 15:35 +0800, Chung-Lin Tang wrote:
>> On 2011/3/30 上午 12:23, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
>>>
>>> On Tue, 2011-03-29 at 22:53 +0800, Chung-Lin Tang wrote:
>>>> On 2011/3/29 下午 10:26, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 2011-03-29 at 18:25 +0800, Chung-Lin Tang wrote:
>>>>>> On 2011/3/24 06:51 PM, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Thu, 2011-03-24 at 12:56 +0900, Chung-Lin Tang wrote:
>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>> PR48250 happens under TARGET_NEON, where DImode is included within the
>>>>>>>> valid NEON modes. This turns the range of legitimate constant indexes to
>>>>>>>> step-4 (coproc load/store), thus arm_legitimize_reload_address() when
>>>>>>>> trying to decompose the [reg+index] reload address into
>>>>>>>> [(reg+index_high)+index_low], can cause an ICE later when 'index_low'
>>>>>>>> part is not aligned to 4.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'm not sure why the current DImode index is computed as:
>>>>>>>> low = ((val & 0xf) ^ 0x8) - 0x8;  the sign-extending into negative
>>>>>>>> values, then subtracting back, actually creates further off indexes.
>>>>>>>> e.g. in the supplied testcase, [sp+13] was turned into [(sp+16)-3].
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hysterical Raisins... the code there was clearly written for the days
>>>>>>> before we had LDRD in the architecture.  At that time the most efficient
>>>>>>> way to load a 64-bit object was to use the LDM{ia,ib,da,db}
>>>>>>> instructions.  The computation here was (I think), intended to try and
>>>>>>> make the most efficient use of an add/sub instruction followed by
>>>>>>> LDM/STM offsetting.  At that time the architecture had no unaligned
>>>>>>> access either, so dealing with 64-bit that were less than 32-bit aligned
>>>>>>> (in those days 32-bit was the maximum alignment) probably wasn't
>>>>>>> considered, or couldn't even get through to reload.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I see it now. The code in output_move_double() returning assembly for
>>>>>> ldm/stm(db/da/ib) for offsets -8/-4/+4 seems to confirm this.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have changed the patch to let the new code handle the TARGET_LDRD case
>>>>>> only.  The pre-LDRD case is still handled by the original code, with an
>>>>>> additional & ~0x3 for aligning the offset to 4.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I've also added a comment for the pre-TARGET_LDRD case. Please see if
>>>>>> the description is accurate enough.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> My patch changes the index decomposing to a more straightforward way; it
>>>>>>>> also sort of outlines the way the other reload address indexes are
>>>>>>>> broken by using and-masks, is not the most effective.  The address is
>>>>>>>> computed by addition, subtracting away the parts to obtain low+high
>>>>>>>> should be the optimal way of giving the largest computable index range.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I have included a few Thumb-2 bits in the patch; I know currently
>>>>>>>> arm_legitimize_reload_address() is only used under TARGET_ARM, but I
>>>>>>>> guess it might eventually be turned into TARGET_32BIT.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think this needs to be looked at carefully on ARMv4/ARMv4T to check
>>>>>>> that it doesn't cause regressions there when we don't have LDRD in the
>>>>>>> instruction set.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'll be testing the modified patch under an ARMv4/ARMv4T configuration.
>>>>>> Okay for trunk if no regressions?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>> Chung-Lin
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 	PR target/48250
>>>>>> 	* config/arm/arm.c (arm_legitimize_reload_address): Adjust
>>>>>> 	DImode constant index decomposing under TARGET_LDRD. Clear
>>>>>> 	lower two bits for NEON, Thumb-2, and !TARGET_LDRD. Add
>>>>>> 	comment for !TARGET_LDRD case.
>>>>>
>>>>> This looks technically correct, but I can't help feeling that trying to
>>>>> deal with the bottom two bits being non-zero is not really worthwhile.
>>>>> This hook is an optimization that's intended to generate better code
>>>>> than the default mechanisms that reload provides.  It is allowed to
>>>>> fail, but it must say so if it does (by returning false).
>>>>>
>>>>> What this hook is trying to do for DImode is to take an address of the
>>>>> form (reg + TOO_BIG_CONST) and turn it into two instructions that are
>>>>> legitimate:
>>>>>
>>>>> 	tmp = (REG + LEGAL_BIG_CONST)
>>>>> 	some_use_of (mem (tmp + SMALL_LEGAL_CONST))
>>>>>
>>>>> The idea behind the optimization is that LEGAL_BIG_CONST will need fewer
>>>>> instructions to generate than TOO_BIG_CONST.  It's unlikely (probably
>>>>> impossible in ARM state) that pushing the bottom two bits of the address
>>>>> into LEGAL_BIG_CONST part of the offset is going to lead to a better
>>>>> code sequence.  
>>>>>
>>>>> So I think it would be more sensible to just return false if we have a
>>>>> DImode address with the bottom 2 bits non-zero and then let the normal
>>>>> reload recovery mechanism take over.
>>>>
>>>> It is supposed to provide better utilization of the full range of
>>>> LEGAL_BIG_CONST+SMALL_LEGAL_CONST.  I am not sure, but I guess reload
>>>> will resolve it with the reg+LEGAL_BIG_CONST part only, using only (mem
>>>> (reg)) for the load/store (correct me if I'm wrong).
>>>>
>>>> Also, the new code slighty improves the reloading, for example currently
>>>> [reg+64] is broken into [(reg+72)-8], creating an additional unneeded
>>>> reload, which is certainly not good when we have ldrd/strd available.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Sorry, didn't mean to suggest that we don't want to do something better
>>> for addresses that are a multiple of 4, just that for addresses that
>>> aren't (at least) word-aligned that we should just bail as the code in
>>> that case won't benefit from the optimization.  So something like
>>>
>>>        if (mode == DImode || (mode == DFmode && TARGET_SOFT_FLOAT))
>>> 	 {
>>> 	    if (val & 3)
>>> 		return false;  /* No point in trying to handle this.  */
>>> 	    ... /* Cases that are useful to handle */
>>
>> I've looked at the reload code surrounding the call to
>> LEGITIMIZE_RELOAD_ADDRESS. It looks like for ARM, reload transforms the
>> address from [reg+#const] to newreg=#const; [reg+newreg]. ARM/Thumb-2
>> has 16-bits to move that constant, which is much more wider in range
>> than a 12-bit constant operand + 8-bit index. So I agree that simply
>> bailing out should be okay.
>>
>> OTOH, I'll still add that, for some micro-architectures, register read
>> ports may be a critical resource; for those cores, handling as many
>> reloads here as possible by breaking into an address add is still
>> slightly better than a 'move + [reg+reg]', for the latter load/store
>> uses one more register read.  So maybe the best should be, to handle
>> when the 'high' part is a valid add-immediate-operand, and bail out if
>> not...
>>
>> C.L.
> 
> If the address is unaligned, then the access is going to be slow anyway;
> but this is all corner case stuff - the vast majority of accesses will
> be at natural alignment.  I think it's better to seek clarity in these
> cases than outright performance in theoretical micro-architectural
> corner cases.
> 
> The largest number of read ports would be needed by store[reg+reg].
> That's only 3 ports for a normal store (four for a pair of registers),
> but cores can normally handle this without penalty by reading the
> address registers in one cycle and the data to be stored in a later
> cycle -- critical paths tend to be on address generation, not data to be
> stored.

Actually, I was thinking of cores with dual-issue, where an additional
port read may prevent it from happening...

Anyways, here's a new patch. I've removed the unaligned handling bits as
you suggested, simply returning false for those cases.

The points above did inspire another improvement, I think. I have added
a test to also return false when the high part is not a valid immediate
operand.  The rationale is, after such a reg=reg+high address compute is
created, it will still have to be split into multiple adds later, so it
may be better to let reload turn it into the [reg+reg] form.

I'll be testing this patch later, here it is for reviewing.

Thanks,
Chung-Lin