From: Richard Sandiford <richard.sandiford@arm.com>
To: Jeff Law via Gcc-patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>
Cc: Richard Biener <rguenther@suse.de>,
YunQiang Su <wzssyqa@gmail.com>,
Jeff Law <jeffreyalaw@gmail.com>,
Eric Botcazou <botcazou@adacore.com>,
YunQiang Su <yunqiang.su@cipunited.com>,
pinskia@gmail.com, ian@airs.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] Store_bit_field_1: Use SUBREG instead of REG if possible
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2023 08:09:36 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <mpt8rbbkqj3.fsf@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <3ad89c88-0cec-c2a1-4e7e-6f20a4a676e2@gmail.com> (Jeff Law via Gcc-patches's message of "Wed, 19 Jul 2023 06:22:32 -0600")
Jeff Law via Gcc-patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org> writes:
> On 7/19/23 04:25, Richard Biener wrote:
>> On Wed, 19 Jul 2023, YunQiang Su wrote:
>>
>>> Eric Botcazou <botcazou@adacore.com> ?2023?7?19??? 17:45???
>>>>
>>>>> I don't see that. That's definitely not what GCC expects here,
>>>>> the left-most word of the doubleword should be unchanged.
>>>>>
>>>>> Your testcase should be a dg-do-run and probably more like
>>>>>
>>>>> NOMIPS16 int __attribute__((noipa)) test (const unsigned char *buf)
>>>>> {
>>>>> int val;
>>>>> ((unsigned char*)&val)[0] = *buf++;
>>>>> ((unsigned char*)&val)[1] = *buf++;
>>>>> ((unsigned char*)&val)[2] = *buf++;
>>>>> ((unsigned char*)&val)[3] = *buf++;
>>>>> return val;
>>>>> }
>>>>> int main()
>>>>> {
>>>>> int val = 0x01020304;
>>>>> val = test (&val);
>>>>> if (val != 0x01020304)
>>>>> abort ();
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> not sure if I got endianess correct. Now, the question is what
>>>>> WORD_REGISTER_OPERATIONS implies for a bitfield insert and what
>>>>> the MIPS ABI says for returning SImode.
>>>>
>>>
>>> MIPS N64 ABI uses 2 GPR for integer return values.
>>> If the return value is SImode, the first v0 register is used, and it
>>> must be sign-extended,
>>> aka the bits[64-31] are all same.
>>>
>>> Yes, it is same for signed and unsigned int32.
>>>
>>> https://irix7.com/techpubs/007-2816-004.pdf
>>> Page 6:
>>> 32-bit integer (int) parameters are always sign-extended when passed
>>> in registers,
>>> whether of signed or unsigned type. [This issue does not arise in the
>>> o32-bit ABI.]
>>
>> Note I think Andrews comment#7 in the PR is spot-on then, the issue
>> isn't the bitfield inserts but the compare where combine elides
>> the sign_extend in favor of a subreg. That's likely some wrongdoing
>> in simplify-rtx in the context of WORD_REGISTER_OPERATIONS.
> And I think it raises a real question about the use of GPR (which maps
> to SImode and DImode for 64bit MIPS targets) on the conditional
> branching patterns in mips.md.
>
> So while this code works:
>
>> (insn 20 19 23 2 (set (reg/v:DI 200 [ val+-4 ])
>> (sign_extend:DI (subreg:SI (reg/v:DI 200 [ val+-4 ]) 4))) "/app/example.cpp":7:29 -1
>> (nil))
Haven't had chance to compile and look at it properly, but this subreg
seems suspicious for MIPS, given the definition of TRULY_NOOP_TRUNCATION.
We should instead use a truncdisi2 to narrow reg:DI 200 to an SI register,
and then sign_extend it.
This is easily missed in target-independent code because so few targets
define TRULY_NOOP_TRUNCATION.
Where is the subreg being generated?
Richard
>> (jump_insn 23 20 24 2 (set (pc)
>> (if_then_else (le (subreg/s/u:SI (reg/v:DI 200 [ val+-4 ]) 4)
>> (const_int 0 [0]))
>> (label_ref 32)
>> (pc))) "/app/example.cpp":8:5 -1
>> (int_list:REG_BR_PROB 440234148 (nil))
>> -> 32)
>
>
> Normally the narrowing SUBREG in insn 23 would indicate we don't care
> about the bits outside SImode. But on a W_R_O targets we very much care
> because the hardware is going to ultimately do the comparison in 64 bits.
>
> As Andrew/Richi have indicated this very much points to combine as
> incorrectly eliminating the explict sign extension. Most likely because
> something saw the SUBREG and concluded those upper bits set by insn 20
> were "don't care" bits.
>
> But it may ultimately be be better for the MIPS port to not expose a
> SImode comparison. Thus reducing the reliance on W_R_O and its
> under-specified semantics and ultimately having the RTL map more closely
> to what the hardware actually does/supports.
>
> That's the model we're working towards on the RISC-V port as well. I
> wouldn't be surprised if we eventually get to the point where we
> eliminate WORD_REGISTER_OPERATIONS entirely.
>
> And yes, bitfield operations are one of the nasty sticking points. The
> thinking for them is that we want to support bit manipulations where the
> bit position is variable. To do that we will emit an explicit sign
> extension after such operations. Then rely on improved REE to identify
> and remove those redundant extensions.
>
> Jeff
>
> Jeff
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-07-20 7:09 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-07-19 4:16 YunQiang Su
2023-07-19 6:26 ` Richard Biener
2023-07-19 6:58 ` YunQiang Su
2023-07-19 7:22 ` Richard Biener
2023-07-19 8:21 ` YunQiang Su
2023-07-19 8:25 ` YunQiang Su
2023-07-19 8:50 ` YunQiang Su
2023-07-19 9:23 ` Richard Biener
2023-07-19 9:27 ` Richard Biener
2023-07-19 9:43 ` YunQiang Su
2023-07-19 9:45 ` Eric Botcazou
2023-07-19 10:12 ` YunQiang Su
2023-07-19 10:25 ` Richard Biener
2023-07-19 12:22 ` Jeff Law
2023-07-20 7:09 ` Richard Sandiford [this message]
2023-07-20 7:23 ` Richard Biener
2023-07-20 9:22 ` Richard Sandiford
2023-12-22 6:11 ` YunQiang Su
2023-12-22 4:45 ` YunQiang Su
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=mpt8rbbkqj3.fsf@arm.com \
--to=richard.sandiford@arm.com \
--cc=botcazou@adacore.com \
--cc=gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=ian@airs.com \
--cc=jeffreyalaw@gmail.com \
--cc=pinskia@gmail.com \
--cc=rguenther@suse.de \
--cc=wzssyqa@gmail.com \
--cc=yunqiang.su@cipunited.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).