Re: [RFA] Minor improvement to coremark, avoid unconditional jump to return

[Richard Biener <richard.guenther@gmail.com>]

On Sun, Sep 25, 2022 at 6:29 PM Jeff Law <jlaw@ventanamicro.com> wrote:
>
> This is a minor improvement for the core_list_find routine in coremark.
>
>
> Basically for riscv, and likely other targets, we can end up with an
> unconditional jump to a return statement.    This is a result of
> compensation code created by bb-reorder, and no jump optimization pass
> runs after bb-reorder to clean this stuff up.
>
> This patch utilizes preexisting code to identify suitable branch targets
> as well as preexisting code to emit a suitable return, so it's pretty
> simple.  Note that when we arrange to do this optimization, the original
> return block may become unreachable. So we conditionally call
> delete_unreachable_blocks to fix that up.
>
> This triggers ~160 times during an x86_64 bootstrap.  Naturally it
> bootstraps and regression tests on x86_64.
>
> I've also bootstrapped this on riscv64, regression testing with qemu
> shows some regressions, but AFAICT they're actually qemu bugs with
> signal handling/delivery -- qemu user mode emulation is not consistently
> calling user defined signal handlers.  Given the same binary, sometimes
> they'll get called and the test passes, other times the handler isn't
> called and the test (of course) fails. I'll probably spend some time to
> try and chase this down for the sake of making testing easier.
>
>
> OK for the trunk?

OK.

Thanks,
Richard.

>
>
> Jeff
>
>
>
>