This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [RFC] type promotion pass
- From: Jeff Law <law at redhat dot com>
- To: Wilco Dijkstra <Wilco dot Dijkstra at arm dot com>, "dje dot gcc at gmail dot com" <dje dot gcc at gmail dot com>, Segher Boessenkool <segher at kernel dot crashing dot org>, "wschmidt at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com" <wschmidt at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com>
- Cc: "kugan dot vivekanandarajah at linaro dot org" <kugan dot vivekanandarajah at linaro dot org>, Richard Biener <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>, "gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>, nd <nd at arm dot com>, "prathamesh dot kulkarni at linaro dot org" <prathamesh dot kulkarni at linaro dot org>
- Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2017 09:18:23 -0600
- Subject: Re: [RFC] type promotion pass
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- Authentication-results: ext-mx02.extmail.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com
- Authentication-results: ext-mx02.extmail.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com; spf=fail smtp.mailfrom=law at redhat dot com
- Dmarc-filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mx1.redhat.com D607C883C4
- References: <DB6PR0801MB2053C1BC62931E4B9DEE87CF836C0@DB6PR0801MB2053.eurprd08.prod.outlook.com> <DB6PR0801MB20534EB68F1A0B4B7AE37EE0836C0@DB6PR0801MB2053.eurprd08.prod.outlook.com>
On 09/15/2017 07:47 AM, Wilco Dijkstra wrote:
> David Edelsohn wrote:
>> Why does AArch64 define PROMOTE_MODE as SImode? GCC ports for other
>> RISC targets mostly seem to use a 64-bit mode. Maybe SImode is the
>> correct definition based on the current GCC optimization
>> infrastructure, but this seems like a change that should be applied to
>> all 64 bit RISC targets.
> The reason is that AArch64 supports both 32-bit registers, so when using char/short
> you want 32-bit operations. There is an issue in that WORD_REGISTER_OPERATIONS
> isn't set on AArch64, but it should be. Maybe that requires some cleanups and ensure it
> correctly interacts with PROMOTE_MODE. There are way too many confusing target
> defines like this and no general mechanism that just works like you'd expect. Promoting
> to an orthogonal set of registers is not something particularly unusual, so it's something
> GCC should support well by default...
Note this ties in directly with the conversation Steve and I have been
having in another thread.
WORD_REGISTER_OPERATIONS works with PROMOTE_MODE. The reason you can't
define WORD_REGISTER_OPERATIONS on aarch64 is because that the implicit
promotion is sometimes to 32 bits and sometimes to 64 bits.
WORD_REGISTER_OPERATIONS can't really describe that.
Ideally the way forward is to address that limitation of
WORD_REGISTER_OPERATIONS which will eliminate a large number of zero
I also think improving REE would help -- in particular having it handle
subregs which are just another way of expressing an extension. I
suspect that would also allow folding away a goodly amount of extensions.
And I'm also keen on doing something with type promotion -- Kai did some
work in this space years ago which I found interesting, even if the work
didn't go forward. It showed a real weakness. So I'm certainly
interested in looking at Prathamesh's work -- with the caveat that if it
stumbles across the same issues as Kai's work that it likely wouldn't be
acceptable in its current form.