public inbox for gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Richard Sandiford <richard.sandiford@arm.com>
To: Wilco Dijkstra <Wilco.Dijkstra@arm.com>
Cc: Wilco Dijkstra via Gcc-patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] AArch64: Improve GOT addressing
Date: Mon, 10 May 2021 15:54:46 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <mptwns64p1l.fsf@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <VE1PR08MB55999D09CBD4A4EBA16B048683549@VE1PR08MB5599.eurprd08.prod.outlook.com> (Wilco Dijkstra's message of "Mon, 10 May 2021 15:04:47 +0100")

Wilco Dijkstra <Wilco.Dijkstra@arm.com> writes:
> Hi Richard,
>
>> Normally we should only put two instructions in the same define_insn
>> if there's a specific ABI or architectural reason for not separating
>> them.  Doing it purely for optimisation reasons is going against the
>> general direction of travel.  So I think the first question is: why
>> don't we simply delay the split until after reload instead, since
>> that's the more normal way of handling this kind of thing?
>
> Well there are no optimizations that benefit from them being split, and there
> is no gain from scheduling them independently. Keeping them together
> means the linker could perform relaxations on the pair without adding new
> relocations. So if we split after reload we'd still want to keep them together.

The burden of proof is the other way though: there has to be a specific
reason for keeping the instructions together, rather than a specific
reason for splitting them.  How we optimise things after RA changes
with time.

Thanks,
Richard

      reply	other threads:[~2021-05-10 14:54 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-05-05 13:17 Wilco Dijkstra
2021-05-10 12:05 ` Richard Sandiford
2021-05-10 14:04   ` Wilco Dijkstra
2021-05-10 14:54     ` Richard Sandiford [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=mptwns64p1l.fsf@arm.com \
    --to=richard.sandiford@arm.com \
    --cc=Wilco.Dijkstra@arm.com \
    --cc=gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org \
    /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).