From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com [148.163.156.1]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D0D1938582B7 for ; Tue, 28 Nov 2023 09:44:54 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org D0D1938582B7 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.ibm.com Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linux.ibm.com ARC-Filter: OpenARC Filter v1.0.0 sourceware.org D0D1938582B7 Authentication-Results: server2.sourceware.org; arc=none smtp.remote-ip=148.163.156.1 ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=sourceware.org; s=key; t=1701164696; cv=none; b=E1zEO1UkvFNyjCOMe5g9OzgOgKrKFgUL7FcFr4NTCvARe0DRkLdttL1UOwSQgUJxDPHRdLz+CM9elf57XNb7hT+N4pQ8dQg9zK9rIkk+0B7STRzhW/KZtvfxrrA+sHt963hHtFQzdPr50y1SvGwE8yHPMoNsbSaxtVPCL/ONUO0= ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=sourceware.org; s=key; t=1701164696; c=relaxed/simple; bh=j/1y76EKTqHKrWznl+iswNfCtBAgvxXPiU7JPJVFZO4=; h=DKIM-Signature:Message-ID:Date:Subject:To:From:MIME-Version; b=SBnWorJDqXksrBEh6TO7MVX7yd4ktUAM7kFx/seCd+BYE++2FlN8rnnLU89Nvb/FO0bQrZlzfBtf9uS+qgvzVyV2K00vZfqNa5DtAWpZE+xWtn/GDefnx5IYMFlIYHKJ7tfzMdx2e+krJIUI+amomcfh4E/2IRIRkIYig3mJqRY= ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; server2.sourceware.org Received: from pps.filterd (m0356517.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.17.1.19/8.17.1.19) with ESMTP id 3AS9gAeQ019617; Tue, 28 Nov 2023 09:44:53 GMT DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ibm.com; h=message-id : date : subject : to : references : cc : from : in-reply-to : content-type : content-transfer-encoding : mime-version; s=pp1; bh=77LznrBbll8risHBFnVjwcbpuAUynNA+q+tWftjwf3k=; b=NTaD2XODDsSRmkntxSkTMChdVpL7Ap7DVdn0+tGKq1Aig0uHlrSxfekq7V+4pBRRYz0b 483t3JNHPn7XDBjVk6zJ8JV8ahmvUSg0oWhZVUIkVk+KiD6t2x44YGr5GbZloCGK55zX 44G/SYT0DNmQhquvbAo14I57j52KxpLtSpusoW5sMjwMbL4vRTPiSJOigF0AXnFzhQXe IRj8amkBvREy31iV4Ry7A00I8XSdOZ5/5qDEPA+QEwKihVUB+OQnucClsDYskEcxJIQO mVQjdeohbALuNQpQH09mlPDWch3wVVyezw+uT9aNlGLsohkqNJpM8IcX1WKWLVb3Aa5n 0A== Received: from pps.reinject (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (PPS) with ESMTPS id 3undt982vp-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 28 Nov 2023 09:44:53 +0000 Received: from m0356517.ppops.net (m0356517.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by pps.reinject (8.17.1.5/8.17.1.5) with ESMTP id 3AS9ghTC021641; Tue, 28 Nov 2023 09:44:52 GMT Received: from ppma22.wdc07v.mail.ibm.com (5c.69.3da9.ip4.static.sl-reverse.com [169.61.105.92]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (PPS) with ESMTPS id 3undt982v8-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 28 Nov 2023 09:44:52 +0000 Received: from pps.filterd (ppma22.wdc07v.mail.ibm.com [127.0.0.1]) by ppma22.wdc07v.mail.ibm.com (8.17.1.19/8.17.1.19) with ESMTP id 3AS7UA5x027610; Tue, 28 Nov 2023 09:44:51 GMT Received: from smtprelay07.fra02v.mail.ibm.com ([9.218.2.229]) by ppma22.wdc07v.mail.ibm.com (PPS) with ESMTPS id 3ukumyey1e-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 28 Nov 2023 09:44:51 +0000 Received: from smtpav06.fra02v.mail.ibm.com (smtpav06.fra02v.mail.ibm.com [10.20.54.105]) by smtprelay07.fra02v.mail.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id 3AS9im3S66716042 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Tue, 28 Nov 2023 09:44:48 GMT Received: from smtpav06.fra02v.mail.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5874120049; Tue, 28 Nov 2023 09:44:48 +0000 (GMT) Received: from smtpav06.fra02v.mail.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B36320040; Tue, 28 Nov 2023 09:44:45 +0000 (GMT) Received: from [9.177.24.176] (unknown [9.177.24.176]) by smtpav06.fra02v.mail.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP; Tue, 28 Nov 2023 09:44:45 +0000 (GMT) Message-ID: <629b1028-7f4d-aca1-e6d4-c9fbe9e0e2dc@linux.ibm.com> Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2023 17:44:43 +0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.6.1 Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] rs6000: Add new pass for replacement of contiguous addresses vector load lxv with lxvp Content-Language: en-US To: Michael Meissner References: Cc: Ajit Agarwal , gcc-patches , David Edelsohn , Segher Boessenkool , Peter Bergner From: "Kewen.Lin" In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 X-Proofpoint-GUID: kyA3SCcVJl-IT1poOl11hW00Rq4vcENY X-Proofpoint-ORIG-GUID: Ynw0hEpuOiyj2GZLKdLN3PTaAffNhiU_ Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Proofpoint-UnRewURL: 0 URL was un-rewritten MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=baseguard engine=ICAP:2.0.272,Aquarius:18.0.987,Hydra:6.0.619,FMLib:17.11.176.26 definitions=2023-11-28_08,2023-11-27_01,2023-05-22_02 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 lowpriorityscore=0 malwarescore=0 adultscore=0 spamscore=0 suspectscore=0 clxscore=1015 mlxlogscore=999 priorityscore=1501 mlxscore=0 impostorscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2311060000 definitions=main-2311280076 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_EF,KAM_SHORT,NICE_REPLY_A,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL,SPF_HELO_NONE,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 2023/11/28 15:05, Michael Meissner wrote: > I tried using this patch to compare with the vector size attribute patch I > posted. I could not build it as a cross compiler on my x86_64 because the > assembler gives the following error: > > Error: operand out of domain (11 is not a multiple of 2) for > std_stacktrace-elf.o. If you look at the assembler, it has combined a lxvp 11 > and lxvp 12 into: > > lxvp 11,0(9) > > The powerpc architecture requires that registers that are loaded with load > vector pair and stored with store vector point instructions only load/store > even/odd register pairs, and not odd/even pairs. Unfortunately, it will mean > that this optimization will match less often. > Yes, the current implementation need some refinements, as comments in [1]: > Besides, it seems a bad idea to put this pass after reload? as register allocation > finishes, this pairing has to be restricted by the reg No. (I didn't see any > checking on the reg No. relationship for paring btw.) > > Looking forward to the comments from Segher/David/Peter/Mike etc. I wonder if we should consider running such pass before reload instead. [1] https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2023-November/638070.html BR, Kewen