This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: ifcvt limitations?
- From: Kyrill Tkachov <kyrylo dot tkachov at foss dot arm dot com>
- To: "gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Cc: Jeff Law <law at redhat dot com>, rth at redhat dot com
- Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 14:36:26 +0100
- Subject: Re: ifcvt limitations?
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <556DD277 dot 1070501 at foss dot arm dot com> <556DDEDC dot 2090701 at redhat dot com>
On 02/06/15 17:50, Jeff Law wrote:
On 06/02/2015 09:57 AM, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
I'm stuck on noce_process_if_block (in ifcvt.c) and what I think is a
restriction that the THEN-block contents have to be only a single set
insn. This fails on aarch64 because we get an extra zero_extend.
In particular, the following check in noce_process_if_block triggers:
insn_a = first_active_insn (then_bb);
if (! insn_a
|| insn_a != last_active_insn (then_bb, FALSE)
|| (set_a = single_set (insn_a)) == NULL_RTX)
Is there any particular reason why the code shouldn't be able to handle
arbitrarily large contents
in then_bb (within a sane limit)?
It's just never been implemented or tested per this comment in noce_process_if_block.
/* We're looking for patterns of the form
(1) if (...) x = a; else x = b;
(2) x = b; if (...) x = a;
(3) if (...) x = a; // as if with an initial x = x.
The later patterns require jumps to be more expensive.
??? For future expansion, look for multiple X in such patterns. */
I think folks would look favorably upon removing that limitation, obviously with some kind of cost checking.
Thanks, I've made some progress towards making it more aggressive.
A question since I'm in the area...
noce_try_cmove_arith that I've been messing around with has this code:
/* A conditional move from two memory sources is equivalent to a
conditional on their addresses followed by a load. Don't do this
early because it'll screw alias analysis. Note that we've
already checked for no side effects. */
/* ??? FIXME: Magic number 5. */
&& MEM_P (a) && MEM_P (b)
&& MEM_ADDR_SPACE (a) == MEM_ADDR_SPACE (b)
&& if_info->branch_cost >= 5)
Any ideas on where the rationale for that 5 came from?
I see it's been there since the very introduction of ifcvt.c
I'd like to replace it with something more sane, maybe even remove it?