From: Hongtao Liu <crazylht@gmail.com>
To: "Liu, Hongtao" <hongtao.liu@intel.com>
Cc: Vladimir Makarov <vmakarov@redhat.com>,
Jeff Law <jeffreyalaw@gmail.com>,
"gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org" <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Check hard_regno_mode_ok before setting lowest memory move cost for the mode with different reg classes.
Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2023 13:53:57 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAMZc-bwRS4B7KSa1X5zmTNhBo3x_6h091jcrydnWutrWeeXvMg@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <SA1PR11MB6757D0D71DEA8B24E72DE0EFE5919@SA1PR11MB6757.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
On Thu, Apr 6, 2023 at 1:07 PM Liu, Hongtao via Gcc-patches
<gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Vladimir Makarov <vmakarov@redhat.com>
> > Sent: Wednesday, April 5, 2023 8:59 PM
> > To: Jeff Law <jeffreyalaw@gmail.com>; Liu, Hongtao
> > <hongtao.liu@intel.com>; gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
> > Subject: Re: [PATCH] Check hard_regno_mode_ok before setting lowest
> > memory move cost for the mode with different reg classes.
> >
> >
> > On 4/4/23 21:29, Jeff Law wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > On 4/3/23 23:13, liuhongt via Gcc-patches wrote:
> > >> There's a potential performance issue when backend returns some
> > >> unreasonable value for the mode which can be never be allocate with
> > >> reg class.
> > >>
> > >> Bootstrapped and regtested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu{-m32,}.
> > >> Ok for trunk(or GCC14 stage1)?
> > >>
> > >> gcc/ChangeLog:
> > >>
> > >> PR rtl-optimization/109351
> > >> * ira.cc (setup_class_subset_and_memory_move_costs): Check
> > >> hard_regno_mode_ok before setting lowest memory move cost for
> > >> the mode with different reg classes.
> > > Not a regression *and* changing register allocation. This seems like
> > > it should defer to gcc-14.
> > >
> > Yes, I am agree. It should wait for gcc-14, especially when we are close to the
> > release. Also the testing x86-64 is not enough for such changes (although I
> > tried ppc64le and did not find any problem).
> >
> > Cost related patches for RA frequently result in new testsuite failures on
> > some targets. Even if the change seems obvious and expected to improve
> > the generated code.
> >
> > Target dependent code sometimes defines correctly the costs only for some
> > possible cases and making less dependent from this pitfall is good. So I think
> > the patch moves us to the right direction.
> >
> > The patch is ok for me to commit it to the trunk after the gcc-13 release and if
> > arm64 testing shows no GCC testsuite regression.
> Bootstrapped and regtested on aarch64-unknown-linux-gnu.
> Waiting for GCC14.
Committed.
> >
> > Thank you for working on this issue.
> >
>
--
BR,
Hongtao
prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-04-19 5:54 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-04-04 5:13 liuhongt
2023-04-05 1:29 ` Jeff Law
2023-04-05 12:58 ` Vladimir Makarov
2023-04-06 5:07 ` Liu, Hongtao
2023-04-19 5:53 ` Hongtao Liu [this message]
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=CAMZc-bwRS4B7KSa1X5zmTNhBo3x_6h091jcrydnWutrWeeXvMg@mail.gmail.com \
--to=crazylht@gmail.com \
--cc=gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=hongtao.liu@intel.com \
--cc=jeffreyalaw@gmail.com \
--cc=vmakarov@redhat.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).