This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: [PATCH, MIPS] 74k madd scheduler tweaks

On 08/04/2012 07:48 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
Sandra Loosemore<> writes:
The existing scheduler bypass information for madd on the 74k uses some
bits copied from the 24k, and is not quite correct.  This patch is based
on one originally sent to us by MIPS and has been present in our local
source base for years.  I've confirmed that we are legally allowed to
contribute this to the FSF; ok for mainline?

Sorry to ask, but do you have a record of why? Reason I ask is that...

Index: gcc/config/mips/
--- gcc/config/mips/	(revision 189988)
+++ gcc/config/mips/	(working copy)
@@ -168,10 +168,11 @@
  ;; mult/madd/msub->int_mfhilo  : 4 cycles (default)
  ;; mult->madd/msub             : 1 cycles
  ;; madd/msub->madd/msub        : 1 cycles
-(define_bypass 1 "r74k_int_mult,r74k_int_mul3" "r74k_int_madd"
-  "mips_linked_madd_p")
-(define_bypass 1 "r74k_int_madd" "r74k_int_madd"
-  "mips_linked_madd_p")
+(define_bypass 1 "r74k_int_mult" "r74k_int_madd")
+(define_bypass 1 "r74k_int_madd" "r74k_int_madd")
+(define_bypass 1 "r74k_int_mul3" "r74k_int_madd"
+  "mips_mult_madd_chain_bypass_p")

  ;; --------------------------------------------------------------
  ;; Floating Point Instructions

...this looks like a step backwards. [long explanation trimmed]

Sigh, I wasn't able to find any detailed rationale for this patch. However, the "DSP ALU scheduling" patch I posted separately gives a clue what the intent was as it also uses mips_mult_madd_chain_bypass_p to give different behavior pre- and post-reload:

+;; Before reload, all multiplier is registered as imul3 (which has a long
+;;  latency).  We temporary jig the latency such that the macc groups
+;;  are scheduled closely together during the first scheduler pass.
+(define_bypass 1 "r74k_int_mul3" "r74k_dsp_mac"
+  "mips_mult_madd_chain_bypass_p")
+(define_bypass 1 "r74k_int_mul3" "r74k_dsp_mac_sat"
+  "mips_mult_madd_chain_bypass_p")

If this is incorrect or looks like a hack to paper over some other problem, I'd be happy to drop the predicate on these bits too. WDYT?


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]