This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Best way to compute cost of a sequence of gimple stmt
- From: Richard Biener <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>
- To: "Thomas Preud'homme" <thomas dot preudhomme at arm dot com>
- Cc: GCC Development <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2014 11:08:21 +0200
- Subject: Re: Best way to compute cost of a sequence of gimple stmt
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <003901cf8486$8e71a3d0$ab54eb70$ at arm dot com> <CAFiYyc1Rvt9UtGUtqUzxq4ww7F96WV-354adZX5EknTArdbhCg at mail dot gmail dot com> <000301cf8538$63e07170$2ba15450$ at arm dot com> <CAFiYyc311_A0caPQQNy_7e_UuSfmXvQqrkznzkHrEGG1V8FqtA at mail dot gmail dot com> <000401cf854e$f298b0b0$d7ca1210$ at arm dot com>
On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 10:27 AM, Thomas Preud'homme
>> From: Richard Biener [mailto:email@example.com]
>> Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2014 4:09 PM
>> > Oh I see. Doing it there would mean instead of two independent
>> > operations you'd do the best combination possible, is that right?
>> Yes (but probably it's not worth the trouble).
> I understood that.
>> > I'm tempted to use a simple heuristic such as comparing the
>> > number of loads before and after, adding one if the load is
>> > unaligned. So in the above example, supposing that there is
>> > some computation done around x before the return line,
>> > we'd have 2 loads before Vs 2 x is unaligned and we would
>> > cancel the optimization. If x is aligned the optimization would
>> > proceed.
>> > Do you thing this approach is also too much trouble or would
>> > not work?
>> I'm not sure. For noop-loads I'd keep them unconditionally, even if
>> unaligned. I'd disable unaligned-load + bswap for now. People
>> interested and sitting on such a target should do the measurements
>> and decide if it's worth the trouble (is arm affected?).
> Yes it is.
>> But I see that the code currently does not limit itself to single-use
>> chains and thus may end up keeping the whole original code life
>> by unrelated uses. So a good thing would be to impose proper
>> restrictions here. For example, in find_bswap_or_nop_1 do
>> if (TREE_CODE (rhs1) != SSA_NAME
>> || !has_single_use (rhs1))
> But then the example in gcc.dg/optimize-bswapdi-2.c would not
> work for instance. Same for swap32_b in gcc.dg/optimize-bswapsi-1.c
> To make it work you'd need to check that there is no use outside the
> sets of statements that form the bitwise OR operation you are
Yes, of course (also for generic shuffles that may have duplicate entries).
> Best regards,