From: Jivan Hakobyan <jivanhakobyan9@gmail.com>
To: Vineet Gupta <vineetg@rivosinc.com>
Cc: Jeff Law <jeffreyalaw@gmail.com>, gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: RISC-V: Folding memory for FP + constant case
Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2023 00:16:01 +0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAHso6sMQHs=aHOi=MnE5OwVhOoZ420MrBAE=cA_fW_5gJ3dS_A@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <64233838-fe5e-458d-1eaf-3025b5448d85@rivosinc.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2844 bytes --]
Thank you for your effort.
I had evaluated only in intrate tests.
I am glad to see the same result on Leela.
On Tue, Aug 1, 2023 at 11:14 PM Vineet Gupta <vineetg@rivosinc.com> wrote:
>
>
> On 7/25/23 20:31, Jeff Law via Gcc-patches wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 7/25/23 05:24, Jivan Hakobyan wrote:
> >> Hi.
> >>
> >> I re-run the benchmarks and hopefully got the same profit.
> >> I also compared the leela's code and figured out the reason.
> >>
> >> Actually, my and Manolis's patches do the same thing. The difference
> >> is only execution order.
> > But shouldn't your patch also allow for for at the last the potential
> > to pull the fp+offset computation out of a loop? I'm pretty sure
> > Manolis's patch can't do that.
> >
> >> Because of f-m-o held after the register allocation it cannot
> >> eliminate redundant move 'sp' to another register.
> > Actually that's supposed to be handled by a different patch that
> > should already be upstream. Specifically;
> >
> >> commit 6a2e8dcbbd4bab374b27abea375bf7a921047800
> >> Author: Manolis Tsamis <manolis.tsamis@vrull.eu>
> >> Date: Thu May 25 13:44:41 2023 +0200
> >>
> >> cprop_hardreg: Enable propagation of the stack pointer if possible
> >> Propagation of the stack pointer in cprop_hardreg is currenty
> >> forbidden in all cases, due to maybe_mode_change returning NULL.
> >> Relax this restriction and allow propagation when no mode change is
> >> requested.
> >> gcc/ChangeLog:
> >> * regcprop.cc (maybe_mode_change): Enable stack pointer
> >> propagation.
> > I think there were a couple-follow-ups. But that's the key change
> > that should allow propagation of copies from the stack pointer and
> > thus eliminate the mov gpr,sp instructions. If that's not happening,
> > then it's worth investigating why.
> >
> >>
> >> Besides that, I have checked the build failure on x264_r. It is
> >> already fixed on the third version.
> > Yea, this was a problem with re-recognition. I think it was fixed by:
> >
> >> commit ecfa870ff29d979bd2c3d411643b551f2b6915b0
> >> Author: Vineet Gupta <vineetg@rivosinc.com>
> >> Date: Thu Jul 20 11:15:37 2023 -0700
> >>
> >> RISC-V: optim const DF +0.0 store to mem [PR/110748]
> >> Fixes: ef85d150b5963 ("RISC-V: Enable TARGET_SUPPORTS_WIDE_INT")
> >> DF +0.0 is bitwise all zeros so int x0 store to mem can be
> >> used to optimize it.
> > [ ... ]
> >
> >
> > So I think the big question WRT your patch is does it still help the
> > case where we weren't pulling the fp+offset computation out of a loop.
>
> I have some numbers for f-m-o v3 vs this. Attached here (vs. inline to
> avoid the Thunderbird mangling the test formatting)
>
--
With the best regards
Jivan Hakobyan
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-08-01 20:16 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-07-12 20:59 Jivan Hakobyan
2023-07-15 6:16 ` Jeff Law
2023-07-25 11:24 ` Jivan Hakobyan
2023-07-26 3:31 ` Jeff Law
2023-08-01 19:14 ` Vineet Gupta
2023-08-01 20:16 ` Jivan Hakobyan [this message]
2023-08-01 21:55 ` Jeff Law
2023-08-01 22:07 ` Philipp Tomsich
2023-08-01 23:03 ` Vineet Gupta
2023-08-01 23:06 ` Philipp Tomsich
2023-08-01 23:13 ` Vineet Gupta
2023-08-01 23:27 ` Jeff Law
2023-08-01 23:38 ` Vineet Gupta
2023-08-01 23:52 ` Jeff Law
2023-08-04 9:52 ` Manolis Tsamis
2023-08-04 16:23 ` Jeff Law
2023-08-05 9:27 ` Manolis Tsamis
2023-08-01 23:22 ` Jeff Law
2023-08-01 23:28 ` Vineet Gupta
2023-08-01 23:21 ` Jeff Law
2023-08-09 19:31 ` 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='CAHso6sMQHs=aHOi=MnE5OwVhOoZ420MrBAE=cA_fW_5gJ3dS_A@mail.gmail.com' \
--to=jivanhakobyan9@gmail.com \
--cc=gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=jeffreyalaw@gmail.com \
--cc=vineetg@rivosinc.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).