public inbox for
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jeff Law <>
To: Jiufu Guo <>,
Subject: Re: [RFC] propgation leap over memory copy for struct
Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2022 16:13:38 -0600	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <>

On 10/30/22 20:42, Jiufu Guo via Gcc-patches wrote:
> Hi,
> We know that for struct variable assignment, memory copy may be used.
> And for memcpy, we may load and store more bytes as possible at one time.
> While it may be not best here:
> 1. Before/after stuct variable assignment, the vaiable may be operated.
> And it is hard for some optimizations to leap over memcpy.  Then some struct
> operations may be sub-optimimal.  Like the issue in PR65421.
> 2. The size of struct is constant mostly, the memcpy would be expanded.  Using
> small size to load/store and executing in parallel may not slower than using
> large size to loat/store. (sure, more registers may be used for smaller bytes.)
> In PR65421, For source code as below:
> ////////t.c
> #define FN 4
> typedef struct { double a[FN]; } A;
> A foo (const A *a) { return *a; }
> A bar (const A a) { return a; }

So the first question in my mind is can we do better at the gimple 
phase?  For the second case in particular can't we just "return a" 
rather than copying a into <retval> then returning <retval>?  This feels 
a lot like the return value optimization from C++.  I'm not sure if it 
applies to the first case or not, it's been a long time since I looked 
at NRV optimizations, but it might be worth poking around in there a bit 

But even so, these kinds of things are still bound to happen, so it's 
probably worth thinking about if we can do better in RTL as well.

The first thing that comes to my mind is to annotate memcpy calls that 
are structure assignments.  The idea here is that we may want to expand 
a memcpy differently in those cases.   Changing how we expand an opaque 
memcpy call is unlikely to be beneficial in most cases.  But changing 
how we expand a structure copy may be beneficial by exposing the 
underlying field values.   This would roughly correspond to your method #1.

Or instead of changing how we expand, teach the optimizers about these 
annotated memcpy calls -- they're just a a copy of each field.   That's 
how CSE and the propagators could treat them. After some point we'd 
lower them in the usual ways, but at least early in the RTL pipeline we 
could keep them as annotated memcpy calls.  This roughly corresponds to 
your second suggestion.


  reply	other threads:[~2022-10-31 22:13 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2022-10-31  2:42 Jiufu Guo
2022-10-31 22:13 ` Jeff Law [this message]
2022-11-01  0:49   ` Segher Boessenkool
2022-11-01  4:30     ` Jiufu Guo
2022-11-05 14:13       ` Richard Biener
2022-11-08  4:05         ` Jiufu Guo
2022-11-09  7:51           ` Jiufu Guo
2022-11-09  8:50             ` Richard Biener
2022-11-01  3:30   ` Jiufu Guo
2022-11-05 11:38   ` Richard Biener
2022-11-09  9:21     ` Jiufu Guo
2022-11-09 12:56       ` Richard Biener
2022-11-01  0:37 ` Segher Boessenkool
2022-11-01  3:01   ` Jiufu Guo

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:

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \

* 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).