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 B5E873858035 for ; Sat, 28 Oct 2023 10:26:48 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org B5E873858035 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 B5E873858035 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=1698488810; cv=none; b=wFANveu33icosyO+5rhtmpBu4pdBO8L+NwTvBZZjcqsG/9+zOPde6iXEZr5qX4jqOTzMnnM68vR3JB5zTVgEkCdyE+lpPtYQGjiVuGkgMSq/iIWrh9cXyGD8TXyPg7tZWg59s8X7udfDRa/teaAJQ6SbTrdEFwj7w89qTAJwzv8= ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=sourceware.org; s=key; t=1698488810; c=relaxed/simple; bh=MzfDH5TC4jdKXqRlH0pxzXL6/WISx510v2XX+C+fvuI=; h=DKIM-Signature:Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:From; b=wWRYmiQp0Z0hJ+Q2W4AMN+ycIBYYH6Ac31UGpQdmqE16zxzdYvfxCqE2KZdf4IT4OsPeNQ8dLgOV1Pt5CDjav9JsjaU79rlzO7lOrFihJuV+M+CTLTa5kFBH3oqRfUSN5CZASqt2uhK/UsEiXYYK5Va00IDwIydbPy0PPBSWleU= ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; server2.sourceware.org Received: from pps.filterd (m0353729.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.17.1.19/8.17.1.19) with ESMTP id 39S9gGsf011537; Sat, 28 Oct 2023 10:26:47 GMT DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ibm.com; h=message-id : date : mime-version : subject : to : cc : references : from : in-reply-to : content-type : content-transfer-encoding; s=pp1; bh=MRnkQ9Xu8EwVz8b46x5YWS7pF5RoTd+6F4Eg6Rl/qgQ=; b=XZTsLmXA2jTMjipEcCGxG4CHk3Mafqafe93WSErxyfs7LG575d+js3U9P5o+9DWZyScx 4AVTjKL7Q+YGo3ju7qLl1iQ9VkmFMIa0a7CIDatg9ul1PWoeKickBSfjUiAgbOY9F5Cy 3gH8zQ9T9cvA+aLKXTF7kHNHKRHthkZIaqcIXYieZEhuMybNAGvjPIL/5tFva+vxOPG4 ZUv1caROQ7Fs3TypT+fwdXdWR0j4NlCCORCQOdMi27R5Pewc0mqIJAidPfnjs3OgdAIf Iw9/AW8ICqIMf7kIpq/RuL9SPhHdYSvggKt7suyUc4yGTm1ACvWrmubqyy25Mwh0+owz Bw== Received: from pps.reinject (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (PPS) with ESMTPS id 3u0ywarkwq-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Sat, 28 Oct 2023 10:26:47 +0000 Received: from m0353729.ppops.net (m0353729.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by pps.reinject (8.17.1.5/8.17.1.5) with ESMTP id 39SAFLWG015159; Sat, 28 Oct 2023 10:26:47 GMT Received: from ppma11.dal12v.mail.ibm.com (db.9e.1632.ip4.static.sl-reverse.com [50.22.158.219]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (PPS) with ESMTPS id 3u0ywarkwb-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Sat, 28 Oct 2023 10:26:46 +0000 Received: from pps.filterd (ppma11.dal12v.mail.ibm.com [127.0.0.1]) by ppma11.dal12v.mail.ibm.com (8.17.1.19/8.17.1.19) with ESMTP id 39S7jW8j008454; Sat, 28 Oct 2023 10:26:46 GMT Received: from smtprelay02.dal12v.mail.ibm.com ([172.16.1.4]) by ppma11.dal12v.mail.ibm.com (PPS) with ESMTPS id 3tywqqb7t2-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Sat, 28 Oct 2023 10:26:46 +0000 Received: from smtpav04.wdc07v.mail.ibm.com (smtpav04.wdc07v.mail.ibm.com [10.39.53.231]) by smtprelay02.dal12v.mail.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id 39SAQjdr32768694 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Sat, 28 Oct 2023 10:26:45 GMT Received: from smtpav04.wdc07v.mail.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3DE5D5805E; Sat, 28 Oct 2023 10:26:45 +0000 (GMT) Received: from smtpav04.wdc07v.mail.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id EDAE858045; Sat, 28 Oct 2023 10:26:41 +0000 (GMT) Received: from [9.43.119.110] (unknown [9.43.119.110]) by smtpav04.wdc07v.mail.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP; Sat, 28 Oct 2023 10:26:41 +0000 (GMT) Message-ID: <7abe07ee-2a27-4f07-9545-b5d4f977c611@linux.ibm.com> Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2023 15:56:41 +0530 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 4/4] ree: Improve ree pass for rs6000 target using defined ABI interfaces Content-Language: en-US To: Vineet Gupta , Bernhard Reutner-Fischer Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, Jeff Law , Richard Biener , Segher Boessenkool , Peter Bergner , gnu-toolchain References: <32ca6e0e-ef68-4d4d-b864-c586a688b2c7@linux.ibm.com> <22541c92-a967-4e66-96b3-e4ad5011cd24@rivosinc.com> <20231023161027.362c626b@nbbrfq.loc> <8da41716-1111-4550-95dd-de41a402101e@linux.ibm.com> <4077DE16-87DA-4DDE-B119-6B516944B632@gmail.com> <7379c85b-178c-4196-a929-129052245165@linux.ibm.com> <20231027191612.068c67ee@nbbrfq.loc> <1f218675-3196-4b51-b08a-bb122501c306@rivosinc.com> From: Ajit Agarwal In-Reply-To: <1f218675-3196-4b51-b08a-bb122501c306@rivosinc.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 X-Proofpoint-GUID: re-CIX0W094cz7XlE5tZWNNbR0hpNHrm X-Proofpoint-ORIG-GUID: rtv7mrfRwnRMf2c4Fck_YHt6Hz_w-tWu 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=2023-10-28_08,2023-10-27_01,2023-05-22_02 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 priorityscore=1501 impostorscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1015 phishscore=0 lowpriorityscore=0 malwarescore=0 adultscore=0 suspectscore=0 bulkscore=0 mlxscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2310240000 definitions=main-2310280080 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,BODY_8BITS,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_EF,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,TXREP 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 28/10/23 4:09 am, Vineet Gupta wrote: > > > On 10/27/23 10:16, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer wrote: >> On Wed, 25 Oct 2023 16:41:07 +0530 >> Ajit Agarwal wrote: >> >>> On 25/10/23 2:19 am, Vineet Gupta wrote: >>>> On 10/24/23 13:36, rep.dot.nop@gmail.com wrote: >>>>>>>>> As said, I don't see why the below was not cleaned up before the V1 submission. >>>>>>>>> Iff it breaks when manually CSEing, I'm curious why? >>>>>>> The function below looks identical in v12 of the patch. >>>>>>> Why didn't you use common subexpressions? >>>>>>> ba >>>>>> Using CSE here breaks aarch64 regressions hence I have reverted it back >>>>>> not to use CSE, >>>>> Just for my own education, can you please paste your patch perusing common subexpressions and an assembly diff of the failing versus working aarch64 testcase, along how you configured that failing (cross-?)compiler and the command-line of a typical testcase that broke when manually CSEing the function below? >>>> I was meaning to ask this before, but what exactly is the CSE issue, manually or whatever. >> If nothing else it would hopefully improve the readability. >> >>>>    >>> Here is the abi interface where I CSE'D and got a mail from automated regressions run that aarch64 >>> test fails. >> We already concluded that this failure was obviously a hiccup on the >> testers, no problem. >> >>> +static inline bool >>> +abi_extension_candidate_return_reg_p (int regno) >>> +{ >>> +  return targetm.calls.function_value_regno_p (regno); >>> +} >> But i was referring to abi_extension_candidate_p :) >> >> your v13 looks like this: >> >> +static bool >> +abi_extension_candidate_p (rtx_insn *insn) >> +{ >> +  rtx set = single_set (insn); >> +  machine_mode dst_mode = GET_MODE (SET_DEST (set)); >> +  rtx orig_src = XEXP (SET_SRC (set), 0); >> + >> +  if (!FUNCTION_ARG_REGNO_P (REGNO (orig_src)) >> +      || abi_extension_candidate_return_reg_p (REGNO (orig_src))) >> +    return false; >> + >> +  /* Return FALSE if mode of destination and source is same.  */ >> +  if (dst_mode == GET_MODE (orig_src)) >> +    return false; >> + >> +  machine_mode mode = GET_MODE (XEXP (SET_SRC (set), 0)); >> +  bool promote_p = abi_target_promote_function_mode (mode); >> + >> +  /* Return FALSE if promote is false and REGNO of source and destination >> +     is different.  */ >> +  if (!promote_p && REGNO (SET_DEST (set)) != REGNO (orig_src)) >> +    return false; >> + >> +  return true; >> +} >> >> and i suppose it would be easier to read if phrased something like >> >> static bool >> abi_extension_candidate_p (rtx_insn *insn) >> { >>    rtx set = single_set (insn); >>    rtx orig_src = XEXP (SET_SRC (set), 0); >>    unsigned int src_regno = REGNO (orig_src); >> >>    /* Not a function argument reg or is a function values return reg.  */ >>    if (!FUNCTION_ARG_REGNO_P (src_regno) >>        || abi_extension_candidate_return_reg_p (src_regno)) >>      return false; >> >>    rtx dst = SET_DST (set); >>    machine_mode src_mode = GET_MODE (orig_src); >> >>    /* Return FALSE if mode of destination and source is the same.  */ >>    if (GET_MODE (dst) == src_mode) >>      return false; >> >>    /* Return FALSE if the FIX THE COMMENT and REGNO of source and destination >>       is different.  */ >>    if (!abi_target_promote_function_mode_p (src_mode) >>        && REGNO (dst) != src_regno) >>      return false; >> >>    return true; >> } >> >> so no, that's not exactly better. >> >> Maybe just do what the function comment says (i did not check the "not >> promoted" part, but you get the idea): >> >> ^L >> >> /* Return TRUE if >>     reg source operand is argument register and not return register, >>     mode of source and destination operand are different, >>     if not promoted REGNO of source and destination operand are the same.  */ >> static bool >> abi_extension_candidate_p (rtx_insn *insn) >> { >>    rtx set = single_set (insn); >>    rtx orig_src = XEXP (SET_SRC (set), 0); >> >>    if (FUNCTION_ARG_REGNO_P (REGNO (orig_src)) >>        && !abi_extension_candidate_return_reg_p (REGNO (orig_src)) >>        && GET_MODE (SET_DST (set)) != GET_MODE (orig_src) >>        && abi_target_promote_function_mode_p (GET_MODE (orig_src)) >>        && REGNO (SET_DST (set)) == REGNO (orig_src)) >>      return true; >> >>    return false; >> } > > This may have been my doing as I asked to split out the logic as some of the conditions merit more commentary. > e.g. why does the mode need to be same > But granted this is the usual coding style in gcc and the extra comments could still be added before the big if > Addressed in V15 of the patch, > -Vineet > >> >> I think this is much easier to actually read (and that's why good >> function comments are important). In the end it's not important and >> just personal preference. >> Either way, I did not check the plausibility of the logic therein. >> >>> >>> I have not done any assembly diff as myself have not cross compiled with aarch64. >> fair enough. >