[PATCH] Add XINSN macro and use it within NEXT_INSN/PREV_INSN (was Re: [PATCH] Force rtl templates to be inlined)

David Malcolm dmalcolm@redhat.com
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...
Name: 0001-Ensure-that-safe_as_a-can-have-no-performance-overhe.patch
Type: text/x-patch
Size: 961 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/attachments/20140905/e5e19b0d/attachment.bin>


More information about the Gcc-patches mailing list