pr52543

[Kenneth Zadeck]

Ian is certainly correct.

I think that the question is really bigger than finding the correct line 
to fix.   The problem is, that this code assumes that machines do not 
have multiword moves or multiword shifts.   My machine has both, and i 
assume that the avr and the neon have at least multiword moves (but i do 
not know about the shifts).   And as life moves forward, more machines 
will have these.

It seems like the right way to fix this is to somehow enhance the code 
at the beginning of decompose_multiword_subregs to ask which modes are 
not cheap to move or shift and then modify the second loop to never 
lower for those operations for those modes.

The question is do i add 2 more target hooks (one for shifting and one 
for moves) or do i use the rtx_cost mechanism and split for anything 
over COSTS_N_INSNS (1) or some such?

Kenny

On 03/20/2012 01:13 AM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> Kenneth Zadeck<zadeck@naturalbridge.com>  writes:
>
>> I have figured out what the root cause of pr52543, but i need some
>> advise as to how to fix it.
>> The bug only happens if the source or destination of the move is a
>> hard register.   lower-subreg never breaks up pseudo to pseudo moves
>> that are larger than word mode.   According to richard sandiford, this
>> bug also appears on the neon, but i do not know if there is a bugzilla
>> for it.   It also appears on my private port, which is why i am
>> interested in it.
>>
>> in the particular case of pr52543 and my port, this happens because
>> the input arguments are hard regs.
>>
>> The offending code is in can_decompose_p.   The problem is that if the
>> reg is a hard reg, it completely blows off all of the information that
>> it accumulated during the first pass and unconditionally splits the
>> register (assuming it is legal to do so).
>>
>> My question for the list, what is the predicate that we want to
>> replace the code that always  decomposes hardregs (assuming it is
>> legal).    In the case of the neon and my port, decomposing costs 4x
>> more than using a wide move.   I assume the avr is similar.
> I don't think can_decompose_p would be the right thing to change.  If
> that function returns false, resolve_simple_move is still going to split
> up the move.  You need to change resolve_simple_move.  In fact, looking
> at resolve_simple_move, I don't think it will break up the register
> unless it has already decided to do so:
>
>    /* If we didn't have any big SUBREGS of decomposed registers, and
>       neither side of the move is a register we are decomposing, then
>       we don't have to do anything here.  */
>
>    if (src == SET_SRC (set)
>        &&  dest == SET_DEST (set)
>        &&  !resolve_reg_p (src)
>        &&  !resolve_subreg_p (src)
>        &&  !resolve_reg_p (dest)
>        &&  !resolve_subreg_p (dest))
>      {
>        end_sequence ();
>        return insn;
>      }
>
> So I think you need to analyze this a bit more.  I don't think that is
> the offending code.
>
> Ian