Re: [RL78] Questions about code-generation

[Richard Hulme <peper03 at yahoo dot com>]

On 10/03/14 22:37, DJ Delorie wrote:
> > I've managed to build GCC myself so that I could experiment a bit
> > but as this is my first foray into compiler internals, I'm
> > struggling to work out how things fit together and what affects
> > what.
>
> The key thing to know about the RL78 backend, is that it has two
> "targets" it uses.  For the first part of the compilation, up until
> after reload, the model uses 16 virtual registers (R8 through R15) and
> a virtual machine to give gcc an orthogonal model that it can generate
> code for.  After reload, there's a "devirtualization" pass in the RL78
> backend that maps the virtual model to the real model (R0 through R7),
> which means copying values in and out of the real registers according
> to which addressing modes are needed.  Then GCC continues optimizing,
> which gets rid of most of the unneeded instructions.
>
> The problem you're probably running into is that deciding which real
> registers to use for each virtual one is a very tricky task, and the
> post-reload optimizers aren't expecing the code to look like what it
> does.
>
> > What causes that code to be generated when using a variable instead
> > of a fixed memory address?
>
> The use of "volatile" disables many of GCC's optimizations.  I
> consider this a bug in GCC, but at the moment it needs to be "fixed"
> in the backends on a case-by-case basis.

Ah, that certainly explains a lot.  How exactly would the fixing be 
done?  Is there an example I could look at for one of the other processors?

It's certainly unfortunate, since an awful lot of bit-twiddling goes on 
with the memory-mapped hardware registers (which obviously generally 
need to be declared volatile).

Just to get a feel for the potential gains, I've removed the volatile 
keyword from all the declarations and rebuilt the project.  That change 
alone reduces the code size by 3.7%.  I wouldn't want to risk running 
that code but the gain is certainly significant.

I calculated a week or two ago that we could make a code-saving of 
around 8% by using near or relative branches and near calls instead of 
always generating far calls.  I changed rl78-real.md to use near 
addressing and got about 5%.  That's probably about right.  I tried to 
generate relative branches too but I'm guessing that the 'length' 
attribute needs to be set for all instructions to get that working properly.

Obviously near/far addressing would need to be controlled by an external 
switch to allow for processors with more than 64KB code-flash.

A few small gains can be had elsewhere (using 'clrb a' in 
zero_extendqihi2_real, possibly optimizing addsi3_internal_real to avoid 
addw ax,#0 etc.).  These don't save much space in our project (about 
30-40 bytes perhaps) but it'll obviously vary from project to project.

Regards,

Richard