[PATCH] RL78 one_cmplhi2 improvement
Sebastian Perta
sebastian.perta@renesas.com
Tue Feb 20 12:15:00 GMT 2018
Hello,
The following patch defines one_cmplhi2 pattern. The improvement does not
come from the two xor instructions used
(in fact for the second xor the pattern uses xor saddr , #byte is used which
is 1 bytes longer than xor a, #byte) it comes
from the fact that that the number of move instructions is reduced (16 bit
movw is used instead of 8 bit mov).
This can be seen on a very simple test case:
uint16_t test_one_cmplhi(uint16_t x)
{
return ~x;
}
_test_one_cmplhi:
mov a, [sp+4]
xor a, #-1
mov r8, a
mov a, [sp+5]
xor a, #-1
mov r9, a
ret
_test_one_cmplhi:
movw ax, [sp+4]
xor a, #-1
xor 0xFFEF8, #-1 ;one_cmplhi2 ax, ax
movw r8, ax
ret
In "gcc.c-torture/execute/" I have seen the patch being effective in 18
cases with the biggest improvement is occurring in
gcc.c-torture/execute/pr68376-2 where this patch reduces the code size from
792 bytes to 704.
Unfortunately there's also a downside to this patch. In cases when the
second xor is redundant GCC never gets the chance to remove the second xor.
This can be seen in gcc.c-torture/execute/pr42833.c for example line 57:
vdest.v1 = (vsrc1.v1 + (1 << (-1 - tmp))) >> -tmp;
This is because all variables are 8 bit while the operation is being
promoted to 16 bit (because of the constants being of type int by default)
this is why the one_cmplhi2 is used in this case.
The relevant insns for this case are:
(insn 35 257 260 14 (set (reg:HI 0 x)
(xor:HI (reg:HI 0 x)
(const_int -1 [0xffffffffffffffff])))
"./xgcc_rw_trunk2/gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/execute/pr42833.c":57 59
{*one_cmplhi2_real}
(nil))
(insn 260 35 261 14 (set (reg:QI 1 a)
(reg:QI 0 x [8]))
"./xgcc_rw_trunk2/gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/execute/pr42833.c":57 44
{*movqi_real}
(expr_list:REG_DEAD (reg:QI 8 r8)
(nil)))
As it can be seen it is quite obvious that reg "a" is dead after insn 35.
I think I can write a simple rtl_opt_pass (similar to pass_rl78_move_elim)
to look for such cases and replace the one_cmplhi2 with one_cmplqi2.
Even without this new pass (which I plan to do in the near future) I still
think (based on testing) the advantages of this patch outweigh the
disadvantage described above.
Is OK to check-in? Or do I need to add the new pass as well for this to be
considered? Thank you!
Regression test is OK, tested with the following command:
make -k check-gcc RUNTESTFLAGS=--target_board=rl78-sim
Best Regards,
Sebastian
2018-02-20 Sebastian Perta <sebastian.perta@renesas.com>
* config/rl78/rl78-expand.md (one_cmplhi2): New define expand.
* config/rl78/rl78-virt.md (one_cmplhi2_virt): New define insn.
* config/rl78/rl78-real.md (one_cmplhi2_real): New define insn.
Index: rl78-expand.md
===================================================================
--- rl78-expand.md (revision 257806)
+++ rl78-expand.md (working copy)
@@ -211,6 +211,16 @@
DONE;"
)
+(define_expand "one_cmplhi2"
+ [(set (match_operand:HI 0 "nonimmediate_operand")
+ (xor:HI (match_operand:HI 1 "general_operand")
+ (const_int -1)))
+ ]
+ ""
+ "if (rl78_force_nonfar_2 (operands, gen_one_cmplhi2))
+ DONE;"
+)
+
;;---------- Shifts ------------------------
(define_expand "ashl<mode>3"
Index: rl78-real.md
===================================================================
--- rl78-real.md (revision 257806)
+++ rl78-real.md (working copy)
@@ -240,6 +240,16 @@
[(set (attr "update_Z") (const_string "update_Z"))]
)
+(define_insn "*one_cmplhi2_real"
+ [(set (match_operand:HI 0 "register_operand" "=A")
+ (xor:HI (match_operand:HI 1 "general_operand" "0")
+ (const_int -1)))
+ ]
+ "rl78_real_insns_ok ()"
+ "xor a, #-1 \;xor 0xFFEF8, #-1 ;one_cmplhi2 %0, %1"
+ [(set_attr "update_Z" "clobber")]
+)
+
;;---------- Shifts ------------------------
(define_insn "*ashlqi3_real"
Index: rl78-virt.md
===================================================================
--- rl78-virt.md (revision 257806)
+++ rl78-virt.md (working copy)
@@ -165,6 +165,16 @@
"v.xor\t%0, %1, %2"
)
+(define_insn "*one_cmplhi2_virt"
+ [(set (match_operand:HI 0 "rl78_nonfar_nonimm_operand" "=v")
+ (xor:HI (match_operand:HI 1 "general_operand" "ivU")
+ (const_int -1)))
+ ]
+ "rl78_virt_insns_ok ()"
+ "v.one_cmplhi2\t%0, %1"
+ [(set_attr "valloc" "op1")]
+)
+
;;---------- Shifts ------------------------
(define_insn "*ashl<mode>3_virt"
More information about the Gcc-patches
mailing list