public inbox for gcc@gcc.gnu.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* Why is REG_ALLOC_ORDER not defined on Aarch64
@ 2018-05-25 22:36 Steve Ellcey
  2018-05-25 22:41 ` Andrew Pinski
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Steve Ellcey @ 2018-05-25 22:36 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: gcc

I was curious if there was any reason that REG_ALLOC_ORDER is not
defined for Aarch64.  Has anyone tried this to see if it could help
performance?  It is defined for many other platforms.

Steve Ellcey
sellcey@cavium.com

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread

* Re: Why is REG_ALLOC_ORDER not defined on Aarch64
  2018-05-25 22:36 Why is REG_ALLOC_ORDER not defined on Aarch64 Steve Ellcey
@ 2018-05-25 22:41 ` Andrew Pinski
  2018-05-26  9:39   ` Richard Sandiford
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Andrew Pinski @ 2018-05-25 22:41 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: sellcey; +Cc: gcc

On Fri, May 25, 2018 at 3:35 PM, Steve Ellcey <sellcey@cavium.com> wrote:
> I was curious if there was any reason that REG_ALLOC_ORDER is not
> defined for Aarch64.  Has anyone tried this to see if it could help
> performance?  It is defined for many other platforms.

https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-07/msg01815.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-07/msg01822.html

>
> Steve Ellcey
> sellcey@cavium.com

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread

* Re: Why is REG_ALLOC_ORDER not defined on Aarch64
  2018-05-25 22:41 ` Andrew Pinski
@ 2018-05-26  9:39   ` Richard Sandiford
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Richard Sandiford @ 2018-05-26  9:39 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Andrew Pinski; +Cc: sellcey, gcc

Andrew Pinski <pinskia@gmail.com> writes:
> On Fri, May 25, 2018 at 3:35 PM, Steve Ellcey <sellcey@cavium.com> wrote:
>> I was curious if there was any reason that REG_ALLOC_ORDER is not
>> defined for Aarch64.  Has anyone tried this to see if it could help
>> performance?  It is defined for many other platforms.
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-07/msg01815.html
> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-07/msg01822.html

It looks like the immediate reason for reverting was the effect of
listing the argument registers in reverse order.  I wonder how much that
actually helps with IRA and LRA?  They track per-register costs, and
would be able to increase the cost of a pseudo that conflicts with a
hard-register call argument.

It just felt like it might have been a "best practice" idea passed down
from the old local.c and global.c days.

Thanks,
Richard

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread

end of thread, other threads:[~2018-05-26  9:39 UTC | newest]

Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2018-05-25 22:36 Why is REG_ALLOC_ORDER not defined on Aarch64 Steve Ellcey
2018-05-25 22:41 ` Andrew Pinski
2018-05-26  9:39   ` Richard Sandiford

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).