public inbox for gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Richard Earnshaw <Richard.Earnshaw@foss.arm.com>
To: Richard Biener <richard.guenther@gmail.com>
Cc: Richard Earnshaw <rearnsha@arm.com>,
	Bernd Edlinger <bernd.edlinger@hotmail.de>,
	GCC Patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] rtl: allow forming subregs of already unaligned mems [PR102125]
Date: Mon, 6 Sep 2021 12:23:11 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <de493c67-9e85-6bfe-b424-d9ef9c28693d@foss.arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAFiYyc1HTpCCbwSKoS_hKMQc+HRuRRHX+6msUBxW4sciDVEfMg@mail.gmail.com>



On 06/09/2021 12:13, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 6, 2021 at 1:08 PM Richard Earnshaw
> <Richard.Earnshaw@foss.arm.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 06/09/2021 11:58, Richard Biener via Gcc-patches wrote:
>>> On Mon, Sep 6, 2021 at 12:40 PM Richard Earnshaw <rearnsha@arm.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> GCC was recently changed to prevent simplify_subreg from simplifying
>>>> a subreg of a mem when the mode of the new mem would have stricter alignment
>>>> constraints than the inner mem already has when the target requires
>>>> STRICT_ALIGNMENT.
>>>>
>>>> However, such targets may have specialist patterns that can handle
>>>> unaligned accesses and this restriction turns out to be unduly restrictive.
>>>> So limit this restriction to only apply when the inner mem is naturally
>>>> aligned to the inner mode.
>>>
>>> Hmm, I think this can end up either generating wrong code or
>>> recog fails.  The specific combination of alignment and mode of 'op'
>>> has been validated to be supported, replacing the mode with sth
>>> else would need re-validation of the combination.  I'm not sure
>>> we can for example just query movmisalign support here and
>>> hope for LRA to reload the mem with that.
>>>
>>> So - where do you run into this?  Is it possible to catch the
>>> situation on a higher level where more context as in the whole insn
>>> is visible?
>>
>> I ran into it with patch 2 of this series when calling gen_highpart on a
>> misaligned mem.  IIRC gen_highpart would end up returning (subreg:SI
>> (mem:DI (addr [A8])) 4), while gen_lowpart would simplify the operation
>> to (mem:SI (addr [A8])) as expected.
>>
>> (subreg:SI (mem:DI (addr [A8])) 4) is really problematic, because it's
>> not a memory_operand (from the manual: it will get reloaded into a
>> register later on).  But that's no good here, I don't want this
>> reloading into a wide register later, I need it to be narrowed to the
>> component part now.
> 
> So maybe calling gen_highpart is not what you want then?
> adjust_address is IIRC what one uses to offset a MEM and change
> its mode.

It was based on looking at the patch for PR 100106 
(r12-163-c33db31d9ad9).  That patch added the MEM_ALIGN constraint when 
previously there was none here and my call would have been simplified. 
Are you saying that GCC was always wrong in this respect?  All I've done 
was to tightened the check that Bernd added.

R.

> 
> Richard.
> 
>>
>> R.
>>
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Richard.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> gcc/ChangeLog:
>>>>
>>>>           PR target/102125
>>>>           * simplify-rtx.c (simplify_context::simplify_subreg): Allow
>>>>           simplifying (subreg (mem())) when the inner mem is already
>>>>           misaligned for its type.
>>>> ---
>>>>    gcc/simplify-rtx.c | 6 +++++-
>>>>    1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>

  reply	other threads:[~2021-09-06 11:23 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-09-06 10:40 [PATCH 0/3] lower more cases of memcpy [PR102125] Richard Earnshaw
2021-09-06 10:40 ` [PATCH 1/3] rtl: allow forming subregs of already unaligned mems [PR102125] Richard Earnshaw
2021-09-06 10:58   ` Richard Biener
2021-09-06 11:08     ` Richard Earnshaw
2021-09-06 11:13       ` Richard Biener
2021-09-06 11:23         ` Richard Earnshaw [this message]
2021-09-06 12:01           ` Richard Biener
2021-09-06 10:40 ` [PATCH 2/3] arm: expand handling of movmisalign for DImode [PR102125] Richard Earnshaw
2021-09-06 10:40 ` [PATCH 3/3] gimple: allow more folding of memcpy [PR102125] Richard Earnshaw
2021-09-06 10:51   ` Richard Biener

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=de493c67-9e85-6bfe-b424-d9ef9c28693d@foss.arm.com \
    --to=richard.earnshaw@foss.arm.com \
    --cc=bernd.edlinger@hotmail.de \
    --cc=gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org \
    --cc=rearnsha@arm.com \
    --cc=richard.guenther@gmail.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).