[x86_64 PATCH] Improve __int128 argument passing (in ix86_expand_move).

Roger Sayle roger@nextmovesoftware.com
Thu Jul 6 12:04:35 GMT 2023


Passing 128-bit integer (TImode) parameters on x86_64 can sometimes
result in surprising code.  Consider the example below (from PR 43644):

__uint128 foo(__uint128 x, unsigned long long y) {
  return x+y;
}

which currently results in 6 consecutive movq instructions:

foo:    movq    %rsi, %rax
        movq    %rdi, %rsi
        movq    %rdx, %rcx
        movq    %rax, %rdi
        movq    %rsi, %rax
        movq    %rdi, %rdx
        addq    %rcx, %rax
        adcq    $0, %rdx
        ret

The underlying issue is that during RTL expansion, we generate the
following initial RTL for the x argument:

(insn 4 3 5 2 (set (reg:TI 85)
        (subreg:TI (reg:DI 86) 0)) "pr43644-2.c":5:1 -1
     (nil))
(insn 5 4 6 2 (set (subreg:DI (reg:TI 85) 8)
        (reg:DI 87)) "pr43644-2.c":5:1 -1
     (nil))
(insn 6 5 7 2 (set (reg/v:TI 84 [ x ])
        (reg:TI 85)) "pr43644-2.c":5:1 -1
     (nil))

which by combine/reload becomes

(insn 25 3 22 2 (set (reg/v:TI 84 [ x ])
        (const_int 0 [0])) "pr43644-2.c":5:1 -1
     (nil))
(insn 22 25 23 2 (set (subreg:DI (reg/v:TI 84 [ x ]) 0)
        (reg:DI 93)) "pr43644-2.c":5:1 90 {*movdi_internal}
     (expr_list:REG_DEAD (reg:DI 93)
        (nil)))
(insn 23 22 28 2 (set (subreg:DI (reg/v:TI 84 [ x ]) 8)
        (reg:DI 94)) "pr43644-2.c":5:1 90 {*movdi_internal}
     (expr_list:REG_DEAD (reg:DI 94)
        (nil)))

where the heavy use of SUBREG SET_DESTs creates challenges for both
combine and register allocation.

The improvement proposed here is to avoid these problematic SUBREGs
by adding (two) special cases to ix86_expand_move.  For insn 4, which
sets a TImode destination from a paradoxical SUBREG, to assign the
lowpart, we can use an explicit zero extension (zero_extendditi2 was
added in July 2022), and for insn 5, which sets the highpart of a
TImode register we can use the *insvti_highpart_1 instruction (that
was added in May 2023, after being approved for stage1 in January).
This allows combine to work its magic, merging these insns into a
*concatditi3 and from there into other optimized forms.

So for the test case above, we now generate only a single movq:

foo:    movq    %rdx, %rax
        xorl    %edx, %edx
        addq    %rdi, %rax
        adcq    %rsi, %rdx
        ret

But there is a little bad news.  This patch causes two (minor) missed
optimization regressions on x86_64; gcc.target/i386/pr82580.c and
gcc.target/i386/pr91681-1.c.  As shown in the test case above, we're
no longer generating adcq $0, but instead using xorl.  For the other
FAIL, register allocation now has more freedom and is (arbitrarily)
choosing a register assignment that doesn't match what the test is
expecting.  These issues are easier to explain and fix once this patch
is in the tree.

The good news is that this approach fixes a number of long standing
issues, that need to checked in bugzilla, including PR target/110533
which was just opened/reported earlier this week.

This patch has been tested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu with make bootstrap
and make -k check, both with and without --target_board=unix{-m32}
with only the two new FAILs described above.  Ok for mainline?

2023-07-06  Roger Sayle  <roger@nextmovesoftware.com>

gcc/ChangeLog
        PR target/43644
        PR target/110533
        * config/i386/i386-expand.cc (ix86_expand_move): Convert SETs of
        TImode destinations from paradoxical SUBREGs (setting the lowpart)
        into explicit zero extensions.  Use *insvti_highpart_1 instruction
        to set the highpart of a TImode destination.

gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
        PR target/43644
        PR target/110533
        * gcc.target/i386/pr110533.c: New test case.
        * gcc.target/i386/pr43644-2.c: Likewise.


Thanks in advance,
Roger
--

-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: patchzt2.txt
URL: <https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/attachments/20230706/ca519b35/attachment.txt>


More information about the Gcc-patches mailing list