From: Kyrill Tkachov <kyrylo.tkachov@foss.arm.com>
To: Jeff Law <law@redhat.com>,
Segher Boessenkool <segher@kernel.crashing.org>
Cc: Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com>,
Vladimir Makarov <vmakarov@redhat.com>,
Christophe Lyon <christophe.lyon@linaro.org>,
gcc-patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>
Subject: Re: a patch for PR68695
Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2016 16:21:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <571114DE.5090106@foss.arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <5711145D.5090905@redhat.com>
On 15/04/16 17:18, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 04/15/2016 05:06 AM, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
>>
>> On 05/04/16 23:35, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
>>> On Tue, Apr 05, 2016 at 10:48:58AM +0100, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
>>>> So for the test gcc.dg/pr10474.c on arm with -marm -O3 before this
>>>> patch we
>>>> perform shrink-wrapping:
>>>> cmp r0, #0
>>>> bxeq lr
>>>> push {r4, lr}
>>>> mov r4, r0
>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> And after the patch we don't:
>>>> push {r4, lr}
>>>> subs r4, r0, #0
>>>> popeq {r4, pc}
>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> The assembly after the "..." is identical.
>>>>
>>>> So the resulting code is indeed shorter, though there is an
>>>> extra stack push and pop on the early return path.
>>>> A similar effect appears on gcc.dg/ira-shrinkwrap-prep-2.c.
>>> The "new" code is better if there is no shrink-wrapping. We can probably
>>> teach prepare_shrink_wrap to do the extra register move if that will
>>> allow
>>> us to wrap more.
>>>
>>>> Though if so, it looks like a shrink-wrapping deficiency exposed by
>>>> this patch, rather than caused by it.
>>> Yes, and mostly a testcase problem even.
>>>
>>>> Jakub, do you happen to have the before and after codegen for these
>>>> tests
>>>> on ppc64? I wonder if the effect is more clearcut there.
>>> RTL before shrink-wrapping would be useful, too.
>>
>> So what shall we do for these tests for GCC 6?
>> Add an XFAIL for arm and powerpc?
> We could just punt gcc-6 and focus on what we want for gcc-7 as this isn't a release critical issue.
>
This was resolved with:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-04/msg00724.html
Sorry, I should have replied to this thread...
Kyrill
> jeff
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-04-15 16:21 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-03-29 16:50 Vladimir Makarov
2016-03-30 21:40 ` Christophe Lyon
2016-04-01 17:45 ` Vladimir Makarov
2016-04-01 20:26 ` Vladimir Makarov
2016-04-01 20:43 ` Jakub Jelinek
2016-04-05 9:49 ` Kyrill Tkachov
2016-04-05 22:35 ` Segher Boessenkool
2016-04-15 11:06 ` Kyrill Tkachov
2016-04-15 16:18 ` Jeff Law
2016-04-15 16:21 ` Kyrill Tkachov [this message]
2016-04-15 16:23 ` Jeff Law
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=571114DE.5090106@foss.arm.com \
--to=kyrylo.tkachov@foss.arm.com \
--cc=christophe.lyon@linaro.org \
--cc=gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=jakub@redhat.com \
--cc=law@redhat.com \
--cc=segher@kernel.crashing.org \
--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).