[PATCH] Add XINSN macro and use it within NEXT_INSN/PREV_INSN (was Re: [PATCH] Force rtl templates to be inlined)
Fri Sep 5 19:05:00 GMT 2014
On Fri, 2014-09-05 at 12:45 -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 09/04/14 14:04, David Malcolm wrote:
> > On Tue, 2014-09-02 at 19:50 +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
> >>> I suspect the bulk of them currently are coming from the safe_as_a
> >>> <rtx_insn *> calls within NEXT_INSN and PREV_INSN; do you happen to have
> >>> information handy on that?
> >> Yes that's right:
> >> - 1.03% lto1 [.] bool is_a_helper<rtx_insn*>::test<rtx_def>(rtx_def*) â
> >> - bool is_a_helper<rtx_insn*>::test<rtx_def>(rtx_def*) â
> >> - 92.20% bool is_a<rtx_insn*, rtx_def>(rtx_def*) â
> >> - 98.53% rtx_insn* safe_as_a<rtx_insn*, rtx_def>(rtx_def*) â
> >> - 73.28% NEXT_INSN(rtx_insn const*) â
> > The is_a_helper for rtx_insn * is non-trivial, so it may be worth
> > avoiding it, even when inlined.
> > The attached patch rewrites the inline NEXT_INSN/PREV_INSN to avoid
> > doing the safe_as_a, instead tightening up the interface so that one can
> > only set them to an insn, and introducing a new XINSN access macro and
> > corresponding rt_insn member of the union.
> > Bootstrapped on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu (Fedora 20), and has been
> > rebuilt as part of a config-list.mk build for all working configurations
> > (albeit with other patches for the latter case).
> > OK for trunk?
> So is this just to deal with the overhead in the safe_as_a helper until
> we can strengthen more code? And is that overhead significant in an
> optimized build?
> Would an alternate approach be to make the checking in safe_as_a
> conditionalized on ENABLE_CHECKING?
I wrote the attached patch to do that, but I don't yet have numbers to
back it up.
Bootstrapped with current settings, and smoketested with
--enable-checking=release (both on Fedora 20 x86_64).
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 961 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the Gcc-patches