public inbox for gcc@gcc.gnu.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Charles J. Tabony" <tabonyee@austin.rr.com>
To: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: IRA undoing scheduling decisions
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2009 09:47:00 -0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20090824235612.1UZ4O.12881.root@hrndva-web01-z01> (raw)

Fellow GCC developers,

I am seeing a performance regression on the port I maintain, and I would appreciate some pointers.

When I compile the following code

void f(int *x, int *y){
  *x = 7;
  *y = 4;
}

with GCC 4.3.2, I get the desired sequence of instructions.  I'll call it sequence A:

r0 = 7
r1 = 4
[x] = r0
[y] = r1

When I compile the same code with GCC 4.4.0, I get a sequence that is lower performance for my target machine.  I'll call it sequence B:

r0 = 7
[x] = r0
r0 = 4
[y] = r0

I see the same difference between GCC 4.3.2 and 4.4.0 when compiling for PowerPC, MIPS, ARM, and FR-V.

When I look at the RTL dumps, I see that the first scheduling pass always produces sequence A, across all targets and GCC versions I tried.  In GCC 4.3.2, sequence A persists throughout the remainder of compilation.  In GCC 4.4.0, for every target, the .ira dump shows that the sequence of instructions has reverted back to sequence B.

Are there any machine-dependent parameters that I can tune to prevent IRA from transforming sequence A into sequence B?  If not, where can I add a hook to allow this decision to be tuned per machine?

Is there any more information you would like me to provide?

Thank you,
Charles J. Tabony

             reply	other threads:[~2009-08-24 23:56 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2009-08-25  9:47 Charles J. Tabony [this message]
2009-08-25 13:18 ` Adam Nemet
2009-08-26 10:09   ` Charles J. Tabony
2009-08-26 10:25     ` Adam Nemet
2009-08-25 15:41 ` Bingfeng Mei
2009-08-27  0:12 ` Peter Bergner
2009-08-27  0:58   ` Richard Guenther
2009-08-27  2:22     ` Peter Bergner
2009-09-01 20:34       ` Peter Bergner
2009-08-27 13:16   ` Alex Turjan
2009-08-29  3:47     ` Jeff Law
2009-09-01 14:38   ` Vladimir Makarov
2009-09-01 20:41     ` Peter Bergner
2009-09-01 20:45       ` Vladimir Makarov
2009-09-01 20:59         ` Peter Bergner
2009-09-02 15:49           ` Vladimir Makarov
2009-09-02 17:41             ` Peter Bergner

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=20090824235612.1UZ4O.12881.root@hrndva-web01-z01 \
    --to=tabonyee@austin.rr.com \
    --cc=gcc@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).