[PATCH 1/7] SMS remove dependence on doloop: Use loop induction variable analysis in SMS pass

Jeff Law law@redhat.com
Wed Jun 22 16:43:00 GMT 2016


On 05/05/2016 12:01 AM, Shiva Chen wrote:
> Hi,
>
> SMS transformation would change the kernel loop iteration count.
> To do this, SMS pass will find the register contain loop count
> and generate the instructions to adjust loop count.
>
> Currently, SMS will try to find count_reg by recognizing doloop_end
> pattern which means if the target didn't define doloop_end pattern
> or the loop not suitable for doloop optimization, SMS pass won't active.
>
> The patch use induction variable analysis to find count_reg instead of
> find doloop_end pattern.
So these patches need to be bootstrapped and regression tested.  Since 
SMS is not the default on any major platforms, I would recommend first 
hacking SMS to be enabled by default.  That isn't a patch you're going 
to submit, but instead it allows you to do bootstrap and regression 
testing on x86_64, ppc64 or whatever desktop/server machines you have 
access to.

I did that with patch #1 just to see what would happen and I get an 
assert triggered in generate_prolog_epilog:

       gcc_assert (REG_P (sub_reg));

Where sub_reg and count_reg are:

(subreg:SI (reg:DI 146 [ ivtmp.11 ]) 0)


AFAICT (reg:DI 146) is the actual IV, but the test actually occurs in 
SImode:


(insn 80 79 82 7 (parallel [
             (set (reg:DI 146 [ ivtmp.11 ])
                 (plus:DI (reg:DI 146 [ ivtmp.11 ])
                     (const_int -1 [0xffffffffffffffff])))
             (clobber (reg:CC 17 flags))
         ]) 212 {*adddi_1}
      (expr_list:REG_UNUSED (reg:CC 17 flags)
         (nil)))

(insn 82 80 83 7 (set (reg:CCGOC 17 flags)
         (compare:CCGOC (subreg:SI (reg:DI 146 [ ivtmp.11 ]) 0)
             (const_int 0 [0]))) 
../../../../gcc/libstdc++-v3/libsupc++/hash_bytes.cc:54 3 {*cmpsi_ccno_1}
      (nil))

(jump_insn 83 82 84 7 (set (pc)
         (if_then_else (ge (reg:CCGOC 17 flags)
                 (const_int 0 [0]))
             (label_ref:DI 81)
             (pc))) 
../../../../gcc/libstdc++-v3/libsupc++/hash_bytes.cc:54 635 {*jcc_1}
      (expr_list:REG_DEAD (reg:CCGOC 17 flags)
         (int_list:REG_BR_PROB 8500 (nil)))
  -> 81)


So you either need to be filtering out cases where the IV is in a 
different mode than its test or handling SUBREGs better throughout the code.

I haven't looked deeply at any of the patches yet.  I won't until 
they're in better shape from a correctness standpoint.

Jeff



More information about the Gcc-patches mailing list