This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |
Other format: | [Raw text] |
On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 9:09 PM, Uros Bizjak <ubizjak@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 8:34 PM, Jeff Law <law@redhat.com> wrote: >> On 05/10/2017 01:05 PM, Uros Bizjak wrote: >>> >>> On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 5:18 PM, Uros Bizjak <ubizjak@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 4:27 PM, Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, May 09, 2017 at 06:06:47PM +0200, Uros Bizjak wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Attached patch enables post-reload compare elimination pass by >>>>>> providing expected patterns (duplicates of existing patterns with >>>>>> setters of reg and flags switched in the parallel) for flag setting >>>>>> arithmetic instructions. >>>>>> >>>>>> The merge triggers more than 3000 times during the gcc bootstrap, >>>>>> mostly in cases where intervening memory load or store prevents >>>>>> combine from merging the arithmetic insn and the following compare. >>>>>> >>>>>> Also, some recent linux x86_64 defconfig build results in ~200 merges, >>>>>> removing ~200 test/cmp insns. Not much, but I think the results still >>>>>> warrant the pass to be enabled. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Isn't the right fix instead to change the compare-elim.c pass to either >>>>> accept both reg vs. flags orderings in parallel, or both depending >>>>> on some target hook, or change it to the order i386.md and most other >>>>> major targets use and just fix up mn10300/rx (and aarch64?) to use the >>>>> same >>>>> order? >>> >>> >>> Attached patch changes compare-elim.c order to what i386.md expects. >>> >>> Thoughts? >> >> I think with an appropriate change to the canonicalization rules in the >> manual this is fine. >> >> I've got the visium, rx and mn103 patches handy to ensure they don't >> regress. aarch64 doesn't seem to be affected either way but I didn't >> investigate why -- I expected it to improve with your change. >> >> I'll write up a ChangeLog and commit the mn103, rx and visium changes after >> you commit the compare-elim & documentation bits. Something like the attached patch? 2017-05-12 Uros Bizjak <ubizjak@gmail.com> * doc/md.texi ( Canonicalization of Instructions): Describe the canonical form of instructions that inherently set a condition code register. Uros.
Attachment:
d.diff.txt
Description: Text document
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |