| Message ID | 51CC6908.1040005@redhat.com |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
On 27/06/13 17:32, Vladimir Makarov wrote: > On 06/27/2013 12:15 PM, Richard Sandiford wrote: >> Vladimir Makarov <vmakarov@redhat.com> writes: >>> Richard, is it ok to commit to the trunk? >> Looks good to me, but I gave up the right to approve it. I think you >> need ROTATERT too though (see arm_legitimate_index_p). >> >> Also, sorry for the nitpick, but once the full condition overflows one line, >> I think each == test should be on its own line. >> >> > Thanks for the comments. Here is the new version of the patch: > > 2013-06-27 Vladimir Makarov <vmakarov@redhat.com> > > * rtlanal.c (must_be_index_p, set_address_index): Add ASHIFTRT, > LSHIFTRT, and ROTATERT. > Although it's not needed for ARM, why would you leave out ROTATE? Hmm, on second thoughts ROTATERT immediate is always canonicalized to ROTATE (Pmode-size - imm), so it might be needed on ARM too. R. > > arm2.patch > > > Index: rtlanal.c > =================================================================== > --- rtlanal.c (revision 200174) > +++ rtlanal.c (working copy) > @@ -5480,7 +5480,11 @@ must_be_base_p (rtx x) > static bool > must_be_index_p (rtx x) > { > - return GET_CODE (x) == MULT || GET_CODE (x) == ASHIFT; > + return (GET_CODE (x) == MULT > + || GET_CODE (x) == ASHIFT > + || GET_CODE (x) == ASHIFTRT > + || GET_CODE (x) == LSHIFTRT > + || GET_CODE (x) == ROTATERT); > } > > /* Set the segment part of address INFO to LOC, given that INNER is the > @@ -5519,7 +5523,11 @@ set_address_base (struct address_info *i > static void > set_address_index (struct address_info *info, rtx *loc, rtx *inner) > { > - if ((GET_CODE (*inner) == MULT || GET_CODE (*inner) == ASHIFT) > + if ((GET_CODE (*inner) == MULT > + || GET_CODE (*inner) == ASHIFT > + || GET_CODE (*inner) == ASHIFTRT > + || GET_CODE (*inner) == LSHIFTRT > + || GET_CODE (*inner) == ROTATERT) > && CONSTANT_P (XEXP (*inner, 1))) > inner = strip_address_mutations (&XEXP (*inner, 0)); > gcc_checking_assert (REG_P (*inner) >
On 06/27/2013 12:50 PM, Richard Earnshaw wrote: > On 27/06/13 17:32, Vladimir Makarov wrote: >> On 06/27/2013 12:15 PM, Richard Sandiford wrote: >>> Vladimir Makarov <vmakarov@redhat.com> writes: >>>> Richard, is it ok to commit to the trunk? >>> Looks good to me, but I gave up the right to approve it. I think you >>> need ROTATERT too though (see arm_legitimate_index_p). >>> >>> Also, sorry for the nitpick, but once the full condition overflows >>> one line, >>> I think each == test should be on its own line. >>> >>> >> Thanks for the comments. Here is the new version of the patch: >> >> 2013-06-27 Vladimir Makarov <vmakarov@redhat.com> >> >> * rtlanal.c (must_be_index_p, set_address_index): Add ASHIFTRT, >> LSHIFTRT, and ROTATERT. >> > > Although it's not needed for ARM, why would you leave out ROTATE? > > Hmm, on second thoughts ROTATERT immediate is always canonicalized to > ROTATE (Pmode-size - imm), so it might be needed on ARM too. Thanks, Richard. I guess we can include ROTATE. It definitely will not hurt but it might be useful for other targets too. So I added ROTATE to the patch and like to get approval for it too.
On 27/06/13 17:59, Vladimir Makarov wrote: > On 06/27/2013 12:50 PM, Richard Earnshaw wrote: >> On 27/06/13 17:32, Vladimir Makarov wrote: >>> On 06/27/2013 12:15 PM, Richard Sandiford wrote: >>>> Vladimir Makarov <vmakarov@redhat.com> writes: >>>>> Richard, is it ok to commit to the trunk? >>>> Looks good to me, but I gave up the right to approve it. I think you >>>> need ROTATERT too though (see arm_legitimate_index_p). >>>> >>>> Also, sorry for the nitpick, but once the full condition overflows >>>> one line, >>>> I think each == test should be on its own line. >>>> >>>> >>> Thanks for the comments. Here is the new version of the patch: >>> >>> 2013-06-27 Vladimir Makarov <vmakarov@redhat.com> >>> >>> * rtlanal.c (must_be_index_p, set_address_index): Add ASHIFTRT, >>> LSHIFTRT, and ROTATERT. >>> >> >> Although it's not needed for ARM, why would you leave out ROTATE? >> >> Hmm, on second thoughts ROTATERT immediate is always canonicalized to >> ROTATE (Pmode-size - imm), so it might be needed on ARM too. > Thanks, Richard. I guess we can include ROTATE. It definitely will not > hurt but it might be useful for other targets too. > > So I added ROTATE to the patch and like to get approval for it too. > > Oh, and another thought, AArch64 will probably need ZERO_EXTEND and SIGN_EXTEND as well. R.
On 06/27/2013 01:10 PM, Richard Earnshaw wrote: > On 27/06/13 17:59, Vladimir Makarov wrote: >> On 06/27/2013 12:50 PM, Richard Earnshaw wrote: >>> On 27/06/13 17:32, Vladimir Makarov wrote: >>>> On 06/27/2013 12:15 PM, Richard Sandiford wrote: >>>>> Vladimir Makarov <vmakarov@redhat.com> writes: >>>>>> Richard, is it ok to commit to the trunk? >>>>> Looks good to me, but I gave up the right to approve it. I think you >>>>> need ROTATERT too though (see arm_legitimate_index_p). >>>>> >>>>> Also, sorry for the nitpick, but once the full condition overflows >>>>> one line, >>>>> I think each == test should be on its own line. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> Thanks for the comments. Here is the new version of the patch: >>>> >>>> 2013-06-27 Vladimir Makarov <vmakarov@redhat.com> >>>> >>>> * rtlanal.c (must_be_index_p, set_address_index): Add >>>> ASHIFTRT, >>>> LSHIFTRT, and ROTATERT. >>>> >>> >>> Although it's not needed for ARM, why would you leave out ROTATE? >>> >>> Hmm, on second thoughts ROTATERT immediate is always canonicalized to >>> ROTATE (Pmode-size - imm), so it might be needed on ARM too. >> Thanks, Richard. I guess we can include ROTATE. It definitely will not >> hurt but it might be useful for other targets too. >> >> So I added ROTATE to the patch and like to get approval for it too. >> >> > > Oh, and another thought, AArch64 will probably need ZERO_EXTEND and > SIGN_EXTEND as well. > It is already implemented as many targets use it.
Hi, for AArch64 it is also needed to take into account SIGN_EXTRACT in the set_address_base and set_address_index routines, as we acan encounter that kind of insn for instance : (insn 29 27 5 7 (set (mem:SI (plus:DI (sign_extract:DI (mult:DI (subreg:DI (reg/v:SI 76 [ elt ]) 0) ... with the attached patch and the LRA enabled, compiler now bootstrap but I've few regressions in the testsuite, gcc.c/torture/execute/fp-cmp-4l.c for instance. I was looking at these issues before submitting a complete AArch64 LRA enabling patch, but as you are speaking about that... Valdimir, for the ARM target I already had the ASHIFTRT and LSHIFTRT addition on my side, but still had an ICE during bootstrap with LRA when compiling fixed-bit.c (the Max number of generated reload insns we talk about already) is it working for you ? Thanks, Yvan On 27 June 2013 19:21, Vladimir Makarov <vmakarov@redhat.com> wrote: > On 06/27/2013 01:10 PM, Richard Earnshaw wrote: >> On 27/06/13 17:59, Vladimir Makarov wrote: >>> On 06/27/2013 12:50 PM, Richard Earnshaw wrote: >>>> On 27/06/13 17:32, Vladimir Makarov wrote: >>>>> On 06/27/2013 12:15 PM, Richard Sandiford wrote: >>>>>> Vladimir Makarov <vmakarov@redhat.com> writes: >>>>>>> Richard, is it ok to commit to the trunk? >>>>>> Looks good to me, but I gave up the right to approve it. I think you >>>>>> need ROTATERT too though (see arm_legitimate_index_p). >>>>>> >>>>>> Also, sorry for the nitpick, but once the full condition overflows >>>>>> one line, >>>>>> I think each == test should be on its own line. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> Thanks for the comments. Here is the new version of the patch: >>>>> >>>>> 2013-06-27 Vladimir Makarov <vmakarov@redhat.com> >>>>> >>>>> * rtlanal.c (must_be_index_p, set_address_index): Add >>>>> ASHIFTRT, >>>>> LSHIFTRT, and ROTATERT. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Although it's not needed for ARM, why would you leave out ROTATE? >>>> >>>> Hmm, on second thoughts ROTATERT immediate is always canonicalized to >>>> ROTATE (Pmode-size - imm), so it might be needed on ARM too. >>> Thanks, Richard. I guess we can include ROTATE. It definitely will not >>> hurt but it might be useful for other targets too. >>> >>> So I added ROTATE to the patch and like to get approval for it too. >>> >>> >> >> Oh, and another thought, AArch64 will probably need ZERO_EXTEND and >> SIGN_EXTEND as well. >> > It is already implemented as many targets use it.
On 13-07-05 8:43 AM, Yvan Roux wrote: > Hi, > > for AArch64 it is also needed to take into account SIGN_EXTRACT in the > set_address_base and set_address_index routines, as we acan encounter > that kind of insn for instance : > > (insn 29 27 5 7 (set (mem:SI (plus:DI (sign_extract:DI (mult:DI > (subreg:DI (reg/v:SI 76 [ elt ]) 0) > ... OK. > with the attached patch and the LRA enabled, compiler now bootstrap > but I've few regressions in the testsuite, It seems ok to me but I am confused of the following change: set_address_base (struct address_info *info, rtx *loc, rtx *inner) { - if (GET_CODE (*inner) == LO_SUM) + if (GET_CODE (*inner) == SIGN_EXTRACT) + inner = strip_address_mutations (&XEXP (*inner, 0)); + + if (GET_CODE (*inner) == LO_SUM || GET_CODE (*inner) == MULT) inner = strip_address_mutations (&XEXP (*inner, 0)); gcc_checking_assert (REG_P (*inner) || MEM_P (*inner) base address should not contain MULT (which you added). It is controlled by the result of must_be_index_p. So set_address_base should not have code for MULT and you need to change must_be_index_p in a way that set_address_base is not called for MULT. > gcc.c/torture/execute/fp-cmp-4l.c for instance. I was looking at these > issues before submitting a complete AArch64 LRA enabling patch, but > as you are speaking about that... > > Valdimir, for the ARM target I already had the ASHIFTRT and LSHIFTRT > addition on my side, but still had an ICE during bootstrap with LRA > when compiling fixed-bit.c (the Max number of generated reload insns > we talk about already) is it working for you ? > > I did not check thumb I guess. If what you are asking about the problem you sent me about 2 weeks ago, I guess one solution would be putting if (lra_in_progress) return NO_REGS; at the beginning of arm/targhooks.c::default_secondary_reload. LRA is smart enough to figure out what to do from constraints in most cases of when reload needs secondary_reload. In arm case, default_secondary_reload only confuses LRA. I had no time to test this change, but it solves LRA cycling for the test case you sent me.
Index: rtlanal.c =================================================================== --- rtlanal.c (revision 200174) +++ rtlanal.c (working copy) @@ -5480,7 +5480,11 @@ must_be_base_p (rtx x) static bool must_be_index_p (rtx x) { - return GET_CODE (x) == MULT || GET_CODE (x) == ASHIFT; + return (GET_CODE (x) == MULT + || GET_CODE (x) == ASHIFT + || GET_CODE (x) == ASHIFTRT + || GET_CODE (x) == LSHIFTRT + || GET_CODE (x) == ROTATERT); } /* Set the segment part of address INFO to LOC, given that INNER is the @@ -5519,7 +5523,11 @@ set_address_base (struct address_info *i static void set_address_index (struct address_info *info, rtx *loc, rtx *inner) { - if ((GET_CODE (*inner) == MULT || GET_CODE (*inner) == ASHIFT) + if ((GET_CODE (*inner) == MULT + || GET_CODE (*inner) == ASHIFT + || GET_CODE (*inner) == ASHIFTRT + || GET_CODE (*inner) == LSHIFTRT + || GET_CODE (*inner) == ROTATERT) && CONSTANT_P (XEXP (*inner, 1))) inner = strip_address_mutations (&XEXP (*inner, 0)); gcc_checking_assert (REG_P (*inner)