[PATCH][middle-end][i386][Version 4] Add -fzero-call-used-regs=[skip|used-gpr-arg|used-arg|all-arg|used-gpr|all-gpr|used|all]
Uros Bizjak
ubizjak@gmail.com
Tue Oct 27 08:09:34 GMT 2020
On Tue, Oct 27, 2020 at 12:08 AM Qing Zhao <QING.ZHAO@oracle.com> wrote:
>
> Hi, Uros,
>
> Could you please check the change compared to the previous version for i386.c as following:
> Let me know any issue there.
It looks that the combination when the function only touches MMX
registers (so, no x87 register is touched) and exits in MMX mode is
not handled in the optimal way. In this case, MMX registers should be
handled in the same way as XMM registers, where only used/arg/all regs
can be cleared.
MMX exit mode x87 exit mode
-------------|----------------------|---------------
uses x87 reg | clear all MMX | clear all x87
uses MMX reg | clear individual MMX | clear all x87
x87 + MMX | clear all MMX | clear all x87
IOW, if x87 is used, we don't know where in the stack (or in which MMX
"register") the value lies. But when the function uses only MMX
registers and exits in MMX mode, we know which register was used, and
we *can* access them individually.
Also, do we want to handle only arg/used registers? x87 has no arg
registers, so there is no need to clear anything. MMX has 3 argument
registers for 32bit targets, and is possible to clear them
individually when the function exits in MMX mode.
Please note review comments inline.
Uros.
> Thanks a lot.
>
> Qing
>
> ---
> gcc/config/i386/i386.c | 136 ++++++++++++++++++---
> .../gcc.target/i386/zero-scratch-regs-28.c | 17 +++
> .../gcc.target/i386/zero-scratch-regs-29.c | 11 ++
> .../gcc.target/i386/zero-scratch-regs-30.c | 11 ++
> 4 files changed, 155 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)
> create mode 100644 gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/zero-scratch-regs-28.c
> create mode 100644 gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/zero-scratch-regs-29.c
> create mode 100644 gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/zero-scratch-regs-30.c
>
> diff --git a/gcc/config/i386/i386.c b/gcc/config/i386/i386.c
> index e66dcf0d587..65f778112d9 100644
> --- a/gcc/config/i386/i386.c
> +++ b/gcc/config/i386/i386.c
> @@ -3554,17 +3554,17 @@ ix86_function_value_regno_p (const unsigned int regno)
> /* Check whether the register REGNO should be zeroed on X86.
> When ALL_SSE_ZEROED is true, all SSE registers have been zeroed
> together, no need to zero it again.
> - Stack registers (st0-st7) and mm0-mm7 are aliased with each other.
> - very hard to be zeroed individually, don't zero individual st or
> - mm registgers. */
> + When NEED_ZERO_MMX is true, MMX registers should be cleared. */
>
> static bool
> zero_call_used_regno_p (const unsigned int regno,
> - bool all_sse_zeroed)
> + bool all_sse_zeroed,
> + bool need_zero_mmx)
> {
> return GENERAL_REGNO_P (regno)
> || (!all_sse_zeroed && SSE_REGNO_P (regno))
> - || MASK_REGNO_P (regno);
> + || MASK_REGNO_P (regno)
> + || (need_zero_mmx && MMX_REGNO_P (regno));
> }
>
> /* Return the machine_mode that is used to zero register REGNO. */
> @@ -3579,8 +3579,12 @@ zero_call_used_regno_mode (const unsigned int regno)
> return SImode;
> else if (SSE_REGNO_P (regno))
> return V4SFmode;
> - else
> + else if (MASK_REGNO_P (regno))
> return HImode;
> + else if (MMX_REGNO_P (regno))
> + return DImode;
Why DImode instead of V4HImode? DImode is "natural" for integer
registers, and we risk moves from integer to MMX regs.
> + else
> + gcc_unreachable ();
> }
>
> /* Generate a rtx to zero all vector registers together if possible,
> @@ -3603,7 +3607,7 @@ zero_all_vector_registers (HARD_REG_SET need_zeroed_hardregs)
> return gen_avx_vzeroall ();
> }
>
> -/* Generate insns to zero all st/mm registers together.
> +/* Generate insns to zero all st registers together.
> Return true when zeroing instructions are generated.
> Assume the number of st registers that are zeroed is num_of_st,
> we will emit the following sequence to zero them together:
> @@ -3616,23 +3620,50 @@ zero_all_vector_registers (HARD_REG_SET need_zeroed_hardregs)
> ...
> fstp %%st(0);
> i.e., num_of_st fldz followed by num_of_st fstp to clear the stack
> - mark stack slots empty. */
> + mark stack slots empty.
> +
> + How to compute the num_of_st?
> + There is no direct mapping from stack registers to hard register
> + numbers. If one stack register need to be cleared, we don't know
> + where in the stack the value remains. So, if any stack register
> + need to be cleared, the whole stack should be cleared. However,
> + x87 stack registers that hold the return value should be excluded.
> + x87 returns in the top (two for complex values) register, so
> + num_of_st should be 7/6 when x87 returns, otherwise it will be 8. */
> +
>
> static bool
> -zero_all_st_mm_registers (HARD_REG_SET need_zeroed_hardregs)
> +zero_all_st_registers (HARD_REG_SET need_zeroed_hardregs)
> {
> unsigned int num_of_st = 0;
> for (unsigned int regno = 0; regno < FIRST_PSEUDO_REGISTER; regno++)
> - if (STACK_REGNO_P (regno)
> - && TEST_HARD_REG_BIT (need_zeroed_hardregs, regno)
> - /* When the corresponding mm register also need to be cleared too. */
> - && TEST_HARD_REG_BIT (need_zeroed_hardregs,
> - (regno - FIRST_STACK_REG + FIRST_MMX_REG)))
> - num_of_st++;
> + if ((STACK_REGNO_P (regno) || MMX_REGNO_P (regno))
> + && TEST_HARD_REG_BIT (need_zeroed_hardregs, regno))
> + {
> + num_of_st++;
> + break;
> + }
>
> if (num_of_st == 0)
> return false;
>
> + bool return_with_x87 = false;
> + return_with_x87 = (crtl->return_rtx
> + && (GET_CODE (crtl->return_rtx) == REG)
> + && (STACK_REG_P (crtl->return_rtx)));
STACK_REG_P already checks for REG, no need for separate check.
> +
> + bool complex_return = false;
> + complex_return = (crtl->return_rtx
> + && COMPLEX_MODE_P (GET_MODE (crtl->return_rtx)));
> +
> + if (return_with_x87)
> + if (complex_return)
> + num_of_st = 6;
> + else
> + num_of_st = 7;
> + else
> + num_of_st = 8;
> +
> rtx st_reg = gen_rtx_REG (XFmode, FIRST_STACK_REG);
> for (unsigned int i = 0; i < num_of_st; i++)
> emit_insn (gen_rtx_SET (st_reg, CONST0_RTX (XFmode)));
> @@ -3646,6 +3677,43 @@ zero_all_st_mm_registers (HARD_REG_SET need_zeroed_hardregs)
> return true;
> }
>
> +
> +/* When the routine exit with MMX mode, if there is any ST registers
> + need to be zeroed, we should clear all MMX registers except the
> + one that holds the return value RET_MMX_REGNO. */
> +static bool
> +zero_all_mm_registers (HARD_REG_SET need_zeroed_hardregs,
> + unsigned int ret_mmx_regno)
> +{
> + bool need_zero_all_mm = false;
> + for (unsigned int regno = 0; regno < FIRST_PSEUDO_REGISTER; regno++)
> + if (STACK_REGNO_P (regno)
> + && TEST_HARD_REG_BIT (need_zeroed_hardregs, regno))
> + {
> + need_zero_all_mm = true;
> + break;
> + }
> +
> + if (!need_zero_all_mm)
> + return false;
> +
> + rtx zero_mmx = NULL_RTX;
> + machine_mode mode = DImode;
> + for (unsigned int regno = FIRST_MMX_REG; regno <= LAST_MMX_REG; regno++)
> + if (regno != ret_mmx_regno)
> + {
> + rtx reg = gen_rtx_REG (mode, regno);
> + if (zero_mmx == NULL_RTX)
> + {
> + zero_mmx = reg;
> + emit_insn (gen_rtx_SET (reg, const0_rtx));
Use CONST0_RTX (mode), and you will be able to use V4HImode instead of DImode.
> + }
> + else
> + emit_move_insn (reg, zero_mmx);
> + }
> + return true;
> +}
> +
> /* TARGET_ZERO_CALL_USED_REGS. */
> /* Generate a sequence of instructions that zero registers specified by
> NEED_ZEROED_HARDREGS. Return the ZEROED_HARDREGS that are actually
> @@ -3655,7 +3723,8 @@ ix86_zero_call_used_regs (HARD_REG_SET need_zeroed_hardregs)
> {
> HARD_REG_SET zeroed_hardregs;
> bool all_sse_zeroed = false;
> - bool st_zeroed = false;
> + bool all_st_zeroed = false;
> + bool all_mm_zeroed = false;
>
> /* first, let's see whether we can zero all vector registers together. */
> rtx zero_all_vec_insn = zero_all_vector_registers (need_zeroed_hardregs);
> @@ -3665,24 +3734,42 @@ ix86_zero_call_used_regs (HARD_REG_SET need_zeroed_hardregs)
> all_sse_zeroed = true;
> }
>
> - /* then, let's see whether we can zero all st+mm registers togeter. */
> - st_zeroed = zero_all_st_mm_registers (need_zeroed_hardregs);
> + /* Then, decide which mode (MMX mode or x87 mode) the function exit with.
> + In order to decide whether we need to clear the MMX registers or the
> + stack registers. */
> +
> + bool exit_with_mmx_mode = (crtl->return_rtx
> + && (GET_CODE (crtl->return_rtx) == REG)
> + && (MMX_REG_P (crtl->return_rtx)));
MMX_REG_P also checks for REG internally.
> +
> + /* then, let's see whether we can zero all st registers together. */
> + if (!exit_with_mmx_mode)
> + all_st_zeroed = zero_all_st_registers (need_zeroed_hardregs);
> + /* Or should we zero all MMX registers. */
> + else
> + {
> + unsigned int exit_mmx_regno = REGNO (crtl->return_rtx);
> + all_mm_zeroed = zero_all_mm_registers (need_zeroed_hardregs,
> + exit_mmx_regno);
> + }
>
> /* Now, generate instructions to zero all the registers. */
>
> CLEAR_HARD_REG_SET (zeroed_hardregs);
> - if (st_zeroed)
> + if (all_st_zeroed)
> SET_HARD_REG_BIT (zeroed_hardregs, FIRST_STACK_REG);
>
> rtx zero_gpr = NULL_RTX;
> rtx zero_vector = NULL_RTX;
> rtx zero_mask = NULL_RTX;
> + rtx zero_mmx = NULL_RTX;
>
> for (unsigned int regno = 0; regno < FIRST_PSEUDO_REGISTER; regno++)
> {
> if (!TEST_HARD_REG_BIT (need_zeroed_hardregs, regno))
> continue;
> - if (!zero_call_used_regno_p (regno, all_sse_zeroed))
> + if (!zero_call_used_regno_p (regno, all_sse_zeroed,
> + exit_with_mmx_mode && !all_mm_zeroed))
> continue;
>
> SET_HARD_REG_BIT (zeroed_hardregs, regno);
> @@ -3728,6 +3815,15 @@ ix86_zero_call_used_regs (HARD_REG_SET need_zeroed_hardregs)
> }
> else
> emit_move_insn (reg, zero_mask);
> + else if (mode == DImode)
> + if (zero_mmx == NULL_RTX)
> + {
> + zero_mmx = reg;
> + tmp = gen_rtx_SET (reg, const0_rtx);
CONST0_RTX (mode), and you will be able to use V4HImode.
> + emit_insn (tmp);
> + }
> + else
> + emit_move_insn (reg, zero_mmx);
> else
> gcc_unreachable ();
> }
> diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/zero-scratch-regs-28.c b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/zero-scratch-regs-28.c
> new file mode 100644
> index 00000000000..61c0bb7a35c
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/zero-scratch-regs-28.c
> @@ -0,0 +1,17 @@
> +/* { dg-do compile { target *-*-linux* } } */
> +/* { dg-options "-O2 -m32 -mmmx -fzero-call-used-regs=all" } */
-m32 should not be used explicitly. Use:
/* { dg-require-effective-target ia32 } */
instead.
Also, can we test -fzero-call-used-regs=used and
-fzero-call-used-regs=arg with MMX regs? As said above, when function
exits in MMX mode, and no x87 is touched, we can clear separate MMX
registers.
> +
> +typedef int __v2si __attribute__ ((vector_size (8)));
> +
> +__v2si ret_mmx (void)
> +{
> + return (__v2si) { 123, 345 };
> +}
> +
> +/* { dg-final { scan-assembler "pxor\[ \t\]*%mm1, %mm1" } } */
> +/* { dg-final { scan-assembler "movq\[ \t\]*%mm1, %mm2" } } */
> +/* { dg-final { scan-assembler "movq\[ \t\]*%mm1, %mm3" } } */
> +/* { dg-final { scan-assembler "movq\[ \t\]*%mm1, %mm4" } } */
> +/* { dg-final { scan-assembler "movq\[ \t\]*%mm1, %mm5" } } */
> +/* { dg-final { scan-assembler "movq\[ \t\]*%mm1, %mm6" } } */
> +/* { dg-final { scan-assembler "movq\[ \t\]*%mm1, %mm7" } } */
> diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/zero-scratch-regs-29.c b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/zero-scratch-regs-29.c
> new file mode 100644
> index 00000000000..db636654e70
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/zero-scratch-regs-29.c
> @@ -0,0 +1,11 @@
> +/* { dg-do compile { target *-*-linux* } } */
> +/* { dg-options "-O2 -m32 -mmmx -fzero-call-used-regs=all" } */
No need for "-m32 -mmmx", this test works the same for 32bit and 64bit targets..
> +typedef int __v2si __attribute__ ((vector_size (8)));
The above is not needed in this test.
> +
> +long double ret_x87 (void)
> +{
> + return 1.1L;
> +}
> +
> +/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times "fldz" 7 } } */
> +/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times "fstp" 7 } } */
> diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/zero-scratch-regs-30.c b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/zero-scratch-regs-30.c
> new file mode 100644
> index 00000000000..7c20b569bfa
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/zero-scratch-regs-30.c
> @@ -0,0 +1,11 @@
> +/* { dg-do compile { target *-*-linux* } } */
> +/* { dg-options "-O2 -fzero-call-used-regs=all" } */
> +typedef int __v2si __attribute__ ((vector_size (8)));
The above line is not needed.
> +
> +_Complex long double ret_x87_cplx (void)
> +{
> + return 1.1L + 1.2iL;
> +}
> +
> +/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times "fldz" 6 } } */
> +/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times "fstp" 6 } } */
The above applies only to 64bit target. 32bit targets pass complex
value via memory and should clear all 8 registers.
> --
> 2.11.0
>
>
>
>
>
> On Oct 26, 2020, at 4:23 PM, Qing Zhao via Gcc-patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Oct 26, 2020, at 3:33 PM, Uros Bizjak <ubizjak@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Oct 26, 2020 at 9:05 PM Uros Bizjak <ubizjak@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Oct 26, 2020 at 8:10 PM Qing Zhao <QING.ZHAO@oracle.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On Oct 26, 2020, at 1:42 PM, Uros Bizjak <ubizjak@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Oct 26, 2020 at 6:30 PM Qing Zhao <QING.ZHAO@oracle.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> The following is the current change in i386.c, could you check whether the logic is good?
>
>
> x87 handling looks good to me.
>
> One remaining question: If the function uses MMX regs (either
> internally or as an argument register), but exits in x87 mode, does
> your logic clear the x87 stack?
>
>
> Yes but not completely yes.
>
> FIRST, As following:
>
> /* Then, decide which mode (MMX mode or x87 mode) the function exit with.
> In order to decide whether we need to clear the MMX registers or the
> stack registers. */
> bool exit_with_mmx_mode = false;
>
> exit_with_mmx_mode = ((GET_CODE (crtl->return_rtx) == REG)
> && (MMX_REG_P (crtl->return_rtx)));
>
> /* then, let's see whether we can zero all st registers togeter. */
> if (!exit_with_mmx_mode)
> st_zeroed = zero_all_st_registers (need_zeroed_hardregs);
>
>
> We first check whether this routine exit with mmx mode, if Not then it’s X87 mode
> (at exit, “EMMS” should already been called per ABI), then
> The st/mm registers will be cleared as x87 stack registers.
>
> However, within the routine “zero_all_st_registers”:
>
> static bool
> zero_all_st_registers (HARD_REG_SET need_zeroed_hardregs)
> {
> unsigned int num_of_st = 0;
> for (unsigned int regno = 0; regno < FIRST_PSEUDO_REGISTER; regno++)
> if (STACK_REGNO_P (regno)
> && TEST_HARD_REG_BIT (need_zeroed_hardregs, regno))
> {
> num_of_st++;
> break;
> }
>
> if (num_of_st == 0)
> return false;
>
>
> In the above, I currently only check whether any “Stack” registers need to be zeroed or not.
> But looks like we should also check any “MMX” register need to be zeroed or not too. If there is any
> “MMX” register need to be zeroed, we still need to clear the whole X87 stack?
>
>
> I think so, but I have to check the details.
>
>
> Please compile the following testcase with "-m32 -mmmx":
>
> --cut here--
> #include <stdio.h>
>
> typedef int __v2si __attribute__ ((vector_size (8)));
>
> __v2si zzz;
>
> void
> __attribute__ ((noinline))
> mmx (__v2si a, __v2si b, __v2si c)
> {
> __v2si res;
>
> res = __builtin_ia32_paddd (a, b);
> zzz = __builtin_ia32_paddd (res, c);
>
> __builtin_ia32_emms ();
> }
>
>
> int main ()
> {
> __v2si a = { 123, 345 };
> __v2si b = { 234, 456 };
> __v2si c = { 345, 567 };
>
> mmx (a, b, c);
>
> printf ("%i, %i\n", zzz[0], zzz[1]);
>
> return 0;
> }
> --cut here--
>
> at the end of mmx() function:
>
> 0x080491ed in mmx ()
> (gdb) disass
> Dump of assembler code for function mmx:
> 0x080491e0 <+0>: paddd %mm1,%mm0
> 0x080491e3 <+3>: paddd %mm2,%mm0
> 0x080491e6 <+6>: movq %mm0,0x804c020
> => 0x080491ed <+13>: emms
> 0x080491ef <+15>: ret
> End of assembler dump.
> (gdb) i r flo
> st0 <invalid float value> (raw 0xffff00000558000002be)
> st1 <invalid float value> (raw 0xffff000001c8000000ea)
> st2 <invalid float value> (raw 0xffff0000023700000159)
> st3 0 (raw 0x00000000000000000000)
> st4 0 (raw 0x00000000000000000000)
> st5 0 (raw 0x00000000000000000000)
> st6 0 (raw 0x00000000000000000000)
> st7 0 (raw 0x00000000000000000000)
> fctrl 0x37f 895
> fstat 0x0 0
> ftag 0x556a 21866
> fiseg 0x0 0
> fioff 0x0 0
> foseg 0x0 0
> fooff 0x0 0
> fop 0x0 0
>
> There are still values in the MMX registers. However, we are in x87
> mode, so the whole stack has to be cleared.
>
>
> Yes. And I just tried, my current implementation behaved correctly.
>
>
> Now, what to do if the function uses x87 registers and exits in MMX
> mode? I guess we have to clear all MMX registers (modulo return value
> reg).
>
>
> Need to add this part.
>
> thanks.
> Qing
>
>
> Uros.
>
>
More information about the Gcc-patches
mailing list