[Patch, RTL] Eliminate redundant vec_select moves.
H.J. Lu
hjl.tools@gmail.com
Wed Dec 11 16:09:00 GMT 2013
On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 7:49 AM, Richard Sandiford
<rdsandiford@googlemail.com> wrote:
> "H.J. Lu" <hjl.tools@gmail.com> writes:
>> On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 1:13 AM, Richard Sandiford
>> <rdsandiford@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>> Richard Henderson <rth@redhat.com> writes:
>>>> On 12/10/2013 10:44 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>>>>> Sorry, I don't understand. I never said it was invalid. I said
>>>>> (subreg:SF (reg:V4SF X) 1) was invalid if (reg:V4SF X) represents
>>>>> a single register. On a little-endian target, the offset cannot be
>>>>> anything other than 0 in that case.
>>>>>
>>>>> So the CANNOT_CHANGE_MODE_CLASS code above seems to be checking for
>>>>> something that is always invalid, regardless of the target. That kind
>>>>> of situation should be rejected by target-independent code instead.
>>>>
>>>> But, we want to disable the subreg before we know whether or not (reg:V4SF X)
>>>> will be allocated to a single hard register. That is something that we can't
>>>> know in target-independent code before register allocation.
>>>
>>> I was thinking that if we've got a class, we've also got things like
>>> CLASS_MAX_NREGS. Maybe that doesn't cope with padding properly though.
>>> But even in the padding cases an offset-based check in C_C_M_C could
>>> be derived from other information.
>>>
>>> subreg_get_info handles padding with:
>>>
>>> nregs_xmode = HARD_REGNO_NREGS_WITH_PADDING (xregno, xmode);
>>> if (GET_MODE_INNER (xmode) == VOIDmode)
>>> xmode_unit = xmode;
>>> else
>>> xmode_unit = GET_MODE_INNER (xmode);
>>> gcc_assert (HARD_REGNO_NREGS_HAS_PADDING (xregno, xmode_unit));
>>> gcc_assert (nregs_xmode
>>> == (GET_MODE_NUNITS (xmode)
>>> * HARD_REGNO_NREGS_WITH_PADDING (xregno, xmode_unit)));
>>> gcc_assert (hard_regno_nregs[xregno][xmode]
>>> == (hard_regno_nregs[xregno][xmode_unit]
>>> * GET_MODE_NUNITS (xmode)));
>>>
>>> /* You can only ask for a SUBREG of a value with holes in the middle
>>> if you don't cross the holes. (Such a SUBREG should be done by
>>> picking a different register class, or doing it in memory if
>>> necessary.) An example of a value with holes is XCmode on 32-bit
>>> x86 with -m128bit-long-double; it's represented in 6 32-bit registers,
>>> 3 for each part, but in memory it's two 128-bit parts.
>>> Padding is assumed to be at the end (not necessarily the 'high part')
>>> of each unit. */
>>> if ((offset / GET_MODE_SIZE (xmode_unit) + 1
>>> < GET_MODE_NUNITS (xmode))
>>> && (offset / GET_MODE_SIZE (xmode_unit)
>>> != ((offset + GET_MODE_SIZE (ymode) - 1)
>>> / GET_MODE_SIZE (xmode_unit))))
>>> {
>>> info->representable_p = false;
>>> rknown = true;
>>> }
>>>
>>> and I wouldn't really want to force targets to individually reproduce
>>> that kind of logic at the class level. If the worst comes to the worst
>>> we could cache the difficult cases.
>>>
>>
>> My case is x86 CANNOT_CHANGE_MODE_CLASS only needs
>> to know if the subreg byte is zero or not. It doesn't care about mode
>> padding. You are concerned about information passed to
>> CANNOT_CHANGE_MODE_CLASS is too expensive for target
>> to process. It isn't the case for x86.
>
> No, I'm concerned that by going this route, we're forcing every target
> (or at least every target with wider-than-word registers, which is most
> of the common ones) to implement the same target-independent restriction.
> This is not an x86-specific issue.
>
So you prefer a generic solution which makes
CANNOT_CHANGE_MODE_CLASS return true
for vector mode subreg if subreg byte != 0. Is this
correct?
Thanks.
--
H.J.
More information about the Gcc-patches
mailing list