This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [Patch, RTL] Eliminate redundant vec_select moves.
- From: "H.J. Lu" <hjl dot tools at gmail dot com>
- To: "H.J. Lu" <hjl dot tools at gmail dot com>, Kirill Yukhin <kirill dot yukhin at gmail dot com>, Richard Henderson <rth at redhat dot com>, Tejas Belagod <tbelagod at arm dot com>, "Yukhin, Kirill" <kirill dot yukhin at intel dot com>, Jeff Law <law at redhat dot com>, Bill Schmidt <wschmidt at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com>, "gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, Uros Bizjak <ubizjak at gmail dot com>, Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>, Richard Sandiford <rdsandiford at googlemail dot com>
- Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 10:21:22 -0800
- Subject: Re: [Patch, RTL] Eliminate redundant vec_select moves.
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <529F666F dot 4000507 at redhat dot com> <CAMe9rOo+2LnE=T9y7bmoxfWov+T4WDizTmpU5jFhpYe_xadgXA at mail dot gmail dot com> <52A07CF6 dot 6010003 at arm dot com> <CAMe9rOpZ41Qe-PqoqyJaVaYPSQfQXSkXPJeUQa23v2=0UabSXA at mail dot gmail dot com> <20131205134000 dot GG44339 at msticlxl57 dot ims dot intel dot com> <20131209064909 dot GA21317 at msticlxl57 dot ims dot intel dot com> <52A593B1 dot 6080406 at arm dot com> <CAMe9rOod87YRhu5vYfHUvDEtG_7_VJHafmUUGc=2Sj9q92SAtQ at mail dot gmail dot com> <CAMe9rOrbyJku55xx0RNFaathvRPSJXwZ5g6ad5v9q+NGPdg9tg at mail dot gmail dot com> <CAMe9rOoCz-9QM8-zMsPkxKnzJ2=M8D9LYKuRFAjwKKP4EU4acg at mail dot gmail dot com> <20131210160532 dot GB25880 at msticlxl57 dot ims dot intel dot com> <CAMe9rOo2FtK7Xk1-f__UMgxS7Q8reG8on2MxboiLGMQDSO64Mg at mail dot gmail dot com> <87bo0o7fn3 dot fsf at talisman dot default>
On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 9:57 AM, Richard Sandiford
<rdsandiford@googlemail.com> wrote:
> "H.J. Lu" <hjl.tools@gmail.com> writes:
>> On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 8:05 AM, Kirill Yukhin <kirill.yukhin@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 09 Dec 14:08, H.J. Lu wrote:
>>>>
>>>> There are no regressions on Linux/x86-64 with -m32 and -m64.
>>>> Can you check if it improves code quality on x886?
>>>
>>> As second thought. If Tejas and Richard are right and it is simply incorrect
>>> to check any offsets in this hook, may be we can end up with patch in the
>>> bottom?
>>
>> What is wrong to pass the correct offset to
>> CANNOT_CHANGE_MODE_CLASS? Backends are free to
>> ignore it.
>
> The point is that:
>
>>> - /* Vector registers do not support subreg with nonzero offsets, which
>>> - are otherwise valid for integer registers. Since we can't see
>>> - whether we have a nonzero offset from here, prohibit all
>>> - nonparadoxical subregs changing size. */
>>> - if (GET_MODE_SIZE (to) < GET_MODE_SIZE (from))
>>> - return true;
>
> seems to be trying to reject things like (subreg:SF (reg:V4SF X) 1),
> which is always invalid for a single-register V4SF. See:
That is correct.
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-12/msg00824.html
>
> for the longer version.
In all places where CANNOT_CHANGE_MODE_CLASS is used,
only mode_change_ok, record_subregs_of_mode and inherit_piecemeal_p
don't have the known subreg offset. In all other places, we know
what exactly the subreg offset is. When the subreg offset is passed
to CANNOT_CHANGE_MODE_CLASS, a backend can have
(subreg:DI (match_operand:V4SF 1 "register_operand" "x,x") 0)
in patterns. I pushed hjl/subreg branch to GCC git repo with
a new pattern:
(define_insn "*mov<VMOVE:mode><VMOVE_SWI48:mode>_subreg"
[(set (match_operand:VMOVE_SWI48 0 "nonimmediate_operand" "=rxm")
(subreg:VMOVE_SWI48 (match_operand:VMOVE 1 "register_operand" "x") 0))]
""
{
#if 1
/* Help check where the subreg pattern is used. */
debug_rtx (insn);
abort ();
#else
/* Handle broken assemblers that require movd instead of movq. */
if (<VMOVE_SWI48:MODE>mode == SImode
|| (!HAVE_AS_IX86_INTERUNIT_MOVQ
&& (GENERAL_REG_P (operands[0]))))
return "%vmovd\t{%x1, %0|%0, %x1}";
return "%vmovq\t{%x1, %0|%0, %1x}";
#endif
}
[(set_attr "type" "ssemov")
(set_attr "prefix" "maybe_vex")
(set_attr "mode" "<VMOVE_SWI48:MODE>")])
I ran GCC testsuites with all languages enabled. This pattern
is triggered 1178 times. I checked a few of them. The new patten
leads to reg-reg move instead of mem-reg load.
--
H.J.
- References:
- Re: [Patch, RTL] Eliminate redundant vec_select moves.
- Re: [Patch, RTL] Eliminate redundant vec_select moves.
- Re: [Patch, RTL] Eliminate redundant vec_select moves.
- Re: [Patch, RTL] Eliminate redundant vec_select moves.
- Re: [Patch, RTL] Eliminate redundant vec_select moves.
- Re: [Patch, RTL] Eliminate redundant vec_select moves.
- Re: [Patch, RTL] Eliminate redundant vec_select moves.
- Re: [Patch, RTL] Eliminate redundant vec_select moves.
- Re: [Patch, RTL] Eliminate redundant vec_select moves.
- Re: [Patch, RTL] Eliminate redundant vec_select moves.
- Re: [Patch, RTL] Eliminate redundant vec_select moves.
- Re: [Patch, RTL] Eliminate redundant vec_select moves.
- Re: [Patch, RTL] Eliminate redundant vec_select moves.