This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
RFA: patch for PR optimization/11864
- From: Joern Rennecke <joern dot rennecke at superh dot com>
- To: gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 19:56:40 +0000 (GMT)
- Subject: RFA: patch for PR optimization/11864
As already outlined in bugzilla, the bug is in reload_cse_simplify_operands.
For those who like to read the rtl for themselves:
just after reload, we got:
(call_insn/u:HI 41 80 42 1 (nil) (parallel [
(set (reg:SI 0 r0)
(call (mem:SI (reg/f:SI 8 r8 [162]) [0 S4 A32])
(const_int 0 [0x0])))
(use (reg:PSI 151 fpscr))
(clobber (reg:SI 146 pr))
]) 169 {call_valuei} (nil)
(expr_list:REG_EH_REGION (const_int -1 [0xffffffffffffffff])
(nil))
(expr_list (use (mem:BLK (scratch) [0 A8]))
(nil)))
(insn:HI 42 41 48 1 (nil) (set (reg:SI 0 r0 [175])
(reg:SI 0 r0)) 122 {movsi_i} (insn_list 41 (nil))
(expr_list:REG_EQUAL (expr_list (use (mem:BLK (scratch) [0 A8]))
(expr_list (reg/f:SI 8 r8 [162])
(nil)))
(nil)))
(insn:HI 48 42 50 1 (nil) (set (mem/s:QI (reg/f:SI 9 r9 [158]) [0 a+0 S1 A8])
(reg:QI 0 r0 [175])) 131 {movqi_i} (insn_list 42 (nil))
(nil))
(note:HI 50 48 52 1 ("pr11864-1.c") 31)
(insn:HI 52 50 53 1 (nil) (set (reg:QI 1 r1 [180])
(mem/s:QI (reg/f:SI 9 r9 [158]) [0 a+0 S1 A8])) 131 {movqi_i} (nil)
(expr_list:REG_EQUIV (mem/s:QI (reg/f:SI 9 r9 [158]) [0 a+0 S1 A8])
(expr_list:REG_EQUAL (mem/s:QI (reg/f:SI 9 r9 [158]) [0 a+0 S1 A8])
(nil))))
(note:HI 53 52 54 1 NOTE_INSN_DELETED)
(insn:HI 54 53 55 1 (nil) (set (reg:SI 147 t)
(eq:SI (reg:SI 1 r1 [180])
(const_int 0 [0x0]))) 1 {cmpeqsi_t} (insn_list 52 (nil))
(nil))
And after reload_cse_simplify_operands had its go at instruction 52, it looks
like this:
(insn:HI 52 50 53 1 (nil) (set (reg:QI 1 r1 [180])
(reg:QI 0 r0)) 131 {movqi_i} (nil)
(expr_list:REG_EQUIV (mem/s:QI (reg/f:SI 9 r9 [158]) [0 a+0 S1 A8])
(expr_list:REG_EQUAL (mem/s:QI (reg/f:SI 9 r9 [158]) [0 a+0 S1 A8])
(nil))))
This, with 0xff00 in r0, instead of 0 we are comparing 0xff00 against 0 in
instruction 54.
A well-tuned port which has LOAD_EXTEND_OP will also have a matching
zero / sign extension pattern that allows a memory operand. So in the common
case that this is a simple load, I make the extension explicit, so
that reload_cse_simplify_operands can safely operate on it. I also
recognize a few other simple cases, otherwise the optimization is
suppressed for memory operands with implicit zero / sign extensions.
The source filename here is for 3.3, but the patch applies cleanly to
postreload in 3.4 . I'm currently testing this for i686-pc-linux-gnu
native and cross to sh-elf.
2004-01-15 J"orn Rennecke <joern.rennecke@superh.com>
* reload1.c (reload_cse_simplify_operands): Don't remove
implicit extension from LOAD_EXTEND_OP.
Index: reload1.c
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvs/gcc/gcc/gcc/reload1.c,v
retrieving revision 1.366.2.6
diff -p -u -r1.366.2.6 reload1.c
--- reload1.c 7 Jun 2003 05:30:09 -0000 1.366.2.6
+++ reload1.c 15 Jan 2004 19:27:54 -0000
@@ -8355,6 +8355,8 @@ reload_cse_simplify_operands (insn, test
{
cselib_val *v;
struct elt_loc_list *l;
+ rtx op;
+ enum machine_mode mode;
CLEAR_HARD_REG_SET (equiv_regs[i]);
@@ -8366,7 +8368,52 @@ reload_cse_simplify_operands (insn, test
&& recog_data.operand_mode[i] == VOIDmode))
continue;
- v = cselib_lookup (recog_data.operand[i], recog_data.operand_mode[i], 0);
+ op = recog_data.operand[i];
+ mode = GET_MODE (op);
+#ifdef LOAD_EXTEND_OP
+ if (GET_CODE (op) == MEM
+ && GET_MODE_BITSIZE (mode) < BITS_PER_WORD
+ && LOAD_EXTEND_OP (mode) != NIL)
+ {
+ rtx set = single_set (insn);
+
+ /* We might have multiple sets, some of which do implict
+ extension. Punt on this for now. */
+ if (! set)
+ continue;
+ /* If the destination is a also MEM or a STRICT_LOW_PART, no
+ extension applies.
+ Also, if there is an explicit extension, we don't have to
+ worry about an implicit one. */
+ else if (GET_CODE (SET_DEST (set)) == MEM
+ || GET_CODE (SET_DEST (set)) == STRICT_LOW_PART
+ || GET_CODE (SET_SRC (set)) == ZERO_EXTEND
+ || GET_CODE (SET_SRC (set)) == SIGN_EXTEND)
+ ; /* Continue ordinary processing. */
+ /* If this is a straight load, make the extension explicit. */
+ else if (GET_CODE (SET_DEST (set)) == REG
+ && recog_data.n_operands == 2
+ && SET_SRC (set) == op
+ && SET_DEST (set) == recog_data.operand[1-i])
+ {
+ validate_change (insn, recog_data.operand_loc[i],
+ gen_rtx_fmt_e (LOAD_EXTEND_OP (mode),
+ word_mode, op),
+ 1);
+ validate_change (insn, recog_data.operand_loc[1-i],
+ gen_rtx_REG (word_mode, REGNO (SET_DEST (set))),
+ 1);
+ if (! apply_change_group)
+ return 0;
+ return reload_cse_simplify_operands (insn, testreg);
+ }
+ else
+ /* ??? There might be arithmetic operations with memory that are
+ safe to optimize, but is it worth the trouble? */
+ continue;
+ }
+#endif /* LOAD_EXTEND_OP */
+ v = cselib_lookup (op, recog_data.operand_mode[i], 0);
if (! v)
continue;