This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org 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] Add XINSN macro and use it within NEXT_INSN/PREV_INSN (was Re: [PATCH] Force rtl templates to be inlined)


On 09/04/14 14:04, David Malcolm wrote:
On Tue, 2014-09-02 at 19:50 +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
I suspect the bulk of them currently are coming from the safe_as_a
<rtx_insn *> calls within NEXT_INSN and PREV_INSN; do you happen to have
information handy on that?

Yes that's right:

-   1.03%  lto1                    [.] bool is_a_helper<rtx_insn*>::test<rtx_def>(rtx_def*)                                                     â
    - bool is_a_helper<rtx_insn*>::test<rtx_def>(rtx_def*)                                                                                       â
       - 92.20% bool is_a<rtx_insn*, rtx_def>(rtx_def*)                                                                                          â
          - 98.53% rtx_insn* safe_as_a<rtx_insn*, rtx_def>(rtx_def*)                                                                             â
             - 73.28% NEXT_INSN(rtx_insn const*)                                                                                                 â

The is_a_helper for rtx_insn * is non-trivial, so it may be worth
avoiding it, even when inlined.

The attached patch rewrites the inline NEXT_INSN/PREV_INSN to avoid
doing the safe_as_a, instead tightening up the interface so that one can
only set them to an insn, and introducing a new XINSN access macro and
corresponding rt_insn member of the union.

Bootstrapped on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu (Fedora 20), and has been
rebuilt as part of a config-list.mk build for all working configurations
(albeit with other patches for the latter case).

OK for trunk?
So is this just to deal with the overhead in the safe_as_a helper until we can strengthen more code? And is that overhead significant in an optimized build?

Would an alternate approach be to make the checking in safe_as_a conditionalized on ENABLE_CHECKING?

jeff


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