[PR68432 00/26] Handle size/speed choices for internal functions

Bernd Schmidt bschmidt@redhat.com
Thu Nov 26 16:10:00 GMT 2015


On 11/26/2015 04:13 PM, Richard Sandiford wrote:

> That would mean that the validity of a gimple call would depend on both
> the target predicates and whether the block containing the statement
> is optimised for size or speed.  So whenever we want to test whether
> a gimple call is valid, we'd need to generate rtl for its arguments
> and pass them to the target predicates.  We'd also need to be aware
> that moving a call between blocks could make it invalid (because
> we might be moving a call from a block optimised for speed to a block
> optimised for size).  I don't think those are the kinds of thing that
> gimple passes would normally expect.

In your world, would we move such calls into places where we currently 
would reject expanding them? I.e., would the expanders no longer fail, 
even if the target does not want to expand something when optimizing for 
size?

The other question is, you mention the need to generate rtl. I don't 
quite see why - the predicates (or insn conditions, to follow the 
terminology in the manual) for a named pattern aren't allowed to look at 
operands. Surely these conditions are already taken into account in your 
internal_fn work?

> It seems better to use FAILs and predicates for correctness only
> and use other ways of representing size/speed decisions.  And since we
> already have another way for rtl, it seems like a good idea to use it
> for gimple too.

I'm looking for a minimal fix for gcc-6, and a 22-patch series that 
rewrites lots of target patterns isn't that. If someone else wants to 
approve it then fine, but I think this is not a good approach for now.

To avoid having to retest validity when moving an internal function, 
could you just make the availability test run the predicate with both 
for_speed and for_size options, and require that the pattern is valid 
for both? That should give you a definitive answer as to whether you can 
later expand the insn, and I'd call that good enough for now.

I wish we'd taken some more time to think through the consequences of 
the original internal_fn patchset.


Bernd



More information about the Gcc-patches mailing list