Re: Machine description question

[Hariharan Sandanagobalane <hariharans at picochip dot com>]

Hi Bengfeng,
Changing my instruction patterns similar to the ones that you sent does 
get over the correctness issue. Setting the imaginary register 
explicitly this way and adding those extra unspec patterns does seem to 
work. But, performance-wise, it still doesn't give me anything. Did you 
decide to use these patterns (instead of the simpler unspec_volatile 
ones) for performance reasons? Does using these patterns give you anything?

Cheers
Hari

Bingfeng Mei wrote:
> Hari,
>
> Here are some patterns similar to yours. 
>
> (define_insn "putbx"
>   [(set (reg:BXBC R_BX) (unspec:BXBC [(match_operand:QI 0 "firepath_register" "vr")] UNSPEC_BXM)) 
>    (unspec:BXBC [(reg:BXBC R_BX)] UNSPEC_BX)]   <---  Important to avoid some wrong optimization (Maybe DCE, I couldn't remember clearly)
>
>
> define_insn "getbx"
>   [(set (reg:BXBC R_BX) (unspec:BXBC [(reg:BXBC R_BX)] UNSPEC_BX))  <---- Artifical dependency
>    (set (match_operand:SI 0 "register_operand" "=r")
>         (unspec:SI [(reg:BXBC R_BX)]UNSPEC_BXM))
>    (unspec:BXBC [(reg:BXBC R_BX)] UNSPEC_BX)]  <---- Important to avoid some optimization. 
>
> Our port is still porivate and not in mainline. 
>
> Cheers,
> Bingfeng
>
>   
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Hariharan Sandanagobalane [mailto:hariharans@picochip.com] 
> > Sent: 13 May 2010 10:17
> > To: Bingfeng Mei
> > Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
> > Subject: Re: Machine description question
> >
> > The patterns for PUT/GET were
> >
> > ; Scalar Put instruction.
> > (define_insn "commsPut"
> >   [(unspec_volatile [(match_operand:HI 0 "const_int_operand" "")
> >                      (match_operand:SI 1 "register_operand" "r")]
> >                     UNSPEC_PUT)]
> >   ""
> >   "PUT %R1,%0\t// PORT(%0) := %R1"
> >   [(set_attr "type" "comms")
> >    (set_attr "length" "2")])
> >
> >
> > (define_insn "commsGet"
> >   [(set (match_operand:SI             0 "register_operand" "=r")
> >         (unspec_volatile:SI
> >          [(match_operand:HI 1 "immediate_operand" "n")]
> >          UNSPEC_GET))]
> >   ""
> >   "GET %1,%R0\t// %R0 := PORT(%1)"
> >   [(set_attr "type" "comms")
> >    (set_attr "length" "2")])
> >
> >
> > I changed them to
> >
> > ; Scalar Put instruction.
> > (define_insn "commsPut"
> >   [(unspec [(match_operand:HI 0 "const_int_operand" "")
> >                      (match_operand:SI 1 "register_operand" "r")]
> >                     UNSPEC_PUT)
> >     (use (reg:HI DUMMY_COMMN_REGNUM))
> >     (clobber (reg:HI DUMMY_COMMN_REGNUM))]
> >   ""
> >   "PUT %R1,%0\t// PORT(%0) := %R1"
> >   [(set_attr "type" "comms")
> >    (set_attr "length" "2")])
> >
> > ; Simple scalar get.
> > (define_insn "commsGet"
> >   [(set (match_operand:SI             0 "register_operand" "=r")
> >         (unspec:SI
> >          [(match_operand:HI 1 "immediate_operand" "n")]
> >          UNSPEC_GET))
> >     (use (reg:HI DUMMY_COMMN_REGNUM))
> >     (clobber (reg:HI DUMMY_COMMN_REGNUM))]
> >   ""
> >   "GET %1,%R0\t// %R0 := PORT(%1)"
> >   [(set_attr "type" "comms")
> >    (set_attr "length" "2")])
> >
> >
> > As for the DUMMY_COMMN_REGNUM, I just defined this as a 
> > FIXED_REGISTER 
> > and bumped up FIRST_PSUEDO_REG.
> >
> > Actually, there is one more problem i faced (other than performance). 
> > The code generated using unspec's was just plain wrong. The unspec 
> > pattern that i was using for GET, which was inside a loop, was being 
> > hoisted out of the loop by the loop optimizer. I guess i should have 
> > seen this coming, since unspec is just "machine-specific" 
> > operation and 
> > the optimizer probably rightly assumes that multiple 
> > execution of this 
> > with same parameters would result in same value being produced. This 
> > obviously is not the case for these communication instructions.
> >
> > Do you have your code to do this using unspec in gcc 
> > mainline? Can you 
> > point me to that, please?
> >
> > Thanks
> > Hari
> >
> > Bingfeng Mei wrote:
> >     
> > > How do you define your imaginary register in target.h? Can you post
> > > one example of your instruction pattern? 
> > >
> > > Bingfeng
> > >
> > >   
> > >       
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Hariharan Sandanagobalane [mailto:hariharans@picochip.com] 
> > > > Sent: 12 May 2010 16:40
> > > > To: Bingfeng Mei
> > > > Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
> > > > Subject: Re: Machine description question
> > > >
> > > > Thanks for your help BingFeng.
> > > >
> > > > I gave this a go and ended up with worse code (and worse 
> > > > memory usage) 
> > > > than before. I started with this experiment because of the 
> > > >         
> > compilers 
> >     
> > > > "All virtual registers are assumed to be used and clobbered by 
> > > > unspec_volatile" rule. The get/put instructions read/write to 
> > > > registers 
> > > > and the virtual register assigned for them interferes with all the 
> > > > virtual registers in the function. So, they were highly 
> > > >         
> > likely to be 
> >     
> > > > spilled and use stack instead. I wanted to try to avoid 
> > > >         
> > this by the 
> >     
> > > > introduction of unspec's and use of imaginary registers.
> > > >
> > > > But, the virtual registers that are involved in unspec 
> > > >         
> > patterns with 
> >     
> > > > these imaginary registers still seem to be marked to 
> > > > interfere with all 
> > > > the virtual registers. Is that to be expected? Am i 
> > > >         
> > missing something 
> >     
> > > > obvious here?
> > > >
> > > > Regards
> > > > Hari
> > > >
> > > > Bingfeng Mei wrote:
> > > >     
> > > >         
> > > > > Our architecture has the similar resource, and we use the 
> > > > >       
> > > > >           
> > > > first approach
> > > >     
> > > >         
> > > > > by creating an imaginary register and dependency between 
> > > > >       
> > > > >           
> > > > these instructions,
> > > >     
> > > >         
> > > > > i.e., every such instruction reads and write to the special 
> > > > >       
> > > > >           
> > > > register to
> > > >     
> > > >         
> > > > > create artificial dependency. You may need to add a 
> > > > >       
> > > > >           
> > > > (unspec:..) as an 
> > > >     
> > > >         
> > > > > independent expression in your pattern to prevent some 
> > > > >       
> > > > >           
> > > > wrong optimizations. 
> > > >     
> > > >         
> > > > > Cheers,
> > > > > Bingfeng
> > > > >
> > > > >   
> > > > >       
> > > > >           
> > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > From: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org [mailto:gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org] On 
> > > > > > Behalf Of Hariharan
> > > > > > Sent: 12 May 2010 11:18
> > > > > > To: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
> > > > > > Subject: Machine description question
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hello all,
> > > > > > Picochip has communication instructions that allow one array 
> > > > > > element to 
> > > > > > pass data to another. There are 3 such instructions 
> > > > > >         
> > > > > >             
> > > > PUT/GET/TSTPORT. 
> > > >     
> > > >         
> > > > > > Currently, all three of these use UNSPEC_VOLATILE side-effect 
> > > > > > expressions to make sure they don't get reordered. But, i 
> > > > > > wonder if it 
> > > > > > is an overkill to use UNSPEC_VOLATILE for this purpose and 
> > > > > >         
> > > > > >             
> > > > whether i 
> > > >     
> > > >         
> > > > > > should use UNSPEC instead. The only thing we care here is 
> > > > > >         
> > > > > >             
> > > > that they 
> > > >     
> > > >         
> > > > > > don't reordered with respect to each other. It is okay for other 
> > > > > > instructions to move around the communication instructions 
> > > > > > (as long as 
> > > > > > normal scheduler dependencies are taken care of). There are 
> > > > > > possibly one 
> > > > > > of two things i can do.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 1. Introduce an implicit dependency between all communication 
> > > > > > instructions by adding a use/clobber of an imaginary register.
> > > > > > 2. Introduce explicit dependency between them by using some 
> > > > > > target hook 
> > > > > > to add dependency links. I have not found any appropriate 
> > > > > > target hook to 
> > > > > > do this.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Can you tell me which one i should try? Has anyone tried 
> > > > > > doing anything 
> > > > > > similar? Any pointers/suggestions on this will be greatly 
> > > > > >         
> > > > > >             
> > > > appreciated.
> > > >     
> > > >         
> > > > > > Thanks
> > > > > > Hari
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >     
> > > > > >         
> > > > > >             
> > > >     
> > > >         
> >