From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-patches-return-492057-listarch-gcc-patches=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 106637 invoked by alias); 11 Dec 2018 08:30:14 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc-patches.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 106383 invoked by uid 89); 11 Dec 2018 08:30:06 -0000
Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none
X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=HX-Envelope-From:sk:richard
X-HELO: mail-lf1-f50.google.com
Received: from mail-lf1-f50.google.com (HELO mail-lf1-f50.google.com) (209.85.167.50) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Tue, 11 Dec 2018 08:30:05 +0000
Received: by mail-lf1-f50.google.com with SMTP id l10so10101918lfh.9        for <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>; Tue, 11 Dec 2018 00:30:03 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;        d=gmail.com; s=20161025;        h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to         :cc;        bh=Ruae3X8vQt0N6D5EuoNHJgAZyj0qvd7gK+bpsehPxyU=;        b=BsB2W8BHeJn0PUiyKHs58/MEcDARAutjG3kqopMlOEzrSFtrDl33XhdJOLzRbQYGz/         /FJWE0pdtMfTb0gi7lRUrvBXaYmhyjx7EQPd8m10iZTrhk+BxaMppkGHyAL/75cLlzRO         EtfS2WSueiJG4SGqYtUY//dxlCEAPr9ixHzKFA2P3zh/lpFR1TzPlWFzEHp8r0wPBjOF         Fq/S7hl36H+iihxilQLDC7JWV9pq9rkgyVV8GPftc5gvLpjQRTdI4oh/XceLppvjQe03         VhI6gbMAYWoPhfxJoS2yELFMk2i1h0hxuvHqaLnKWnve70m4IwrYFAqOgSz0/TDd7Kar         XIJA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <2bac4239-d7ef-7555-a362-cfddc6bde931@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <2bac4239-d7ef-7555-a362-cfddc6bde931@redhat.com>
From: Richard Biener <richard.guenther@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2018 08:30:00 -0000
Message-ID: <CAFiYyc0H90GBwob3KUNpAY2HgpaYEdtLQ+Ls6cC95gZ48ZyuEg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [committed] [PR tree-optimization/80520] Throttle path splitting slightly.
To: Jeff Law <law@redhat.com>
Cc: GCC Patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
X-IsSubscribed: yes
X-SW-Source: 2018-12/txt/msg00631.txt.bz2

On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 5:56 AM Jeff Law <law@redhat.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> This is a pre-req for fixing 80520.  Essentially the goal here is to
> keep the key code in this form:
>
>   <bb 3>
>   [ ... ]
>   if (_20 != 0)
>     goto <bb 5>; [50.00%]
>   else
>     goto <bb 4>; [50.00%]
>
>   <bb 4> [local count: 531502203]:
>   _18 = _25 ^ 2567483615;
>
>   <bb 5> [local count: 1063004407]:
>   # prephitmp_49 = PHI <_25(3), _18(4)>
>   _2 = (void *) ivtmp.8_30;
>   MEM[base: _2, offset: 0B] = prephitmp_49;
>   ivtmp.8_29 = ivtmp.8_30 + 8;
>   if (ivtmp.8_29 != _6)
>     goto <bb 3>; [98.99%]
>   else
>     goto <bb 6>; [1.01%]
>
>
> Split-paths wants to duplicate bb5 into bb4.  It's just not all that
> profitable to do so.  We can get ever-so-slightly better code on a
> target like microblaze and perhaps others with delay slots and no
> conditional move/execution capabilities.  But that seems more like
> something we should be tackling at the RTL level.
>
> To finish fixing 80520 we will need to improve the RTL if-conversion
> where we presumably can cost things and make a good choice between the
> branchy code we have vs straightline code with a conditional move or
> conditional execution.  I'm not tackling that yet.
>
> Note that split-path-5 has the same basic structure.  A half-diamond
> with a single statement in the middle block that should be trivially
> if-convertable if profitable.  So I adjusted that testcase.
>
> Bootstrapped and regression tested on x86_64.  Installing on the trunk
> momentarily.

You seem to have committed two copies of the changes?

Richard.