Re: [AArch64][PR65375] Fix RTX cost for vector SET

[Kugan <kugan dot vivekanandarajah at linaro dot org>]

On 16/03/15 23:32, Kugan wrote:
>>> lower-subreg.c:compute_costs() only cares about the cost of a (set (reg)
>>> (const_int )) move but I think the intention, at least for now, is to
>>> return extra_cost->vect.alu for all the vector operations.
>>
>> Almost, what we want at the moment is COSTS_N_INSNS (1) +
>> extra_cost->vect.alu
> 
> Thanks Kyrill for the review.
> 
>>> Regression tested on aarch64-linux-gnu with no new regression. Is this
>>> OK for trunk?
>>
>> Are you sure it's a (set (reg) (const_int)) that's being costed here? I
>> thought for moves into vecto registers it would be a (set (reg)
>> (const_vector)) which we don't handle in our rtx costs currently. I
>> think the correct approach would be to extend the aarch64_rtx_costs
>> switch statement to handle the CONST_VECT case. I believe you can use
>> aarch64_simd_valid_immediate to check whether x is a valid immediate for
>> a simd instruction and give it a cost of extra_cost->vect.alu. The logic
>> should be similar to the CONST_INT case.
> 
> Sorry about the (set (reg) (const_int)) above. But the actual RTL that
> is being split at 220r.subreg2 is
> 
> (insn 11 10 12 2 (set (subreg:V4SF (reg/v:OI 77 [ __o ]) 0)
>          (subreg:V4SF (reg/v:OI 73 [ __o ]) 0))
> /home/kugan/work/builds/gcc-fsf-gcc/tools/lib/gcc/aarch64-none-linux-gnu/5.0.0/include/arm_neon.h:22625
> 800 {*aarch64_simd_movv4sf}
>       (nil))
> 
> And also, if we return RTX cost above COSTS_N_INSNS (1), it will be
> split and it dosent recover from there. Therefore we need something like
> the below to prevent that happening.
> 

Hi Kyrill,

How about the attached patch? It is similar to what is currently done
for scalar register move.

Thanks,
Kugan

Attachment: p.txt
Description: Text document