From patchwork Mon Mar 19 18:48:57 2012 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Patchwork-Submitter: Vladimir Makarov X-Patchwork-Id: 147605 Return-Path: X-Original-To: incoming@patchwork.ozlabs.org Delivered-To: patchwork-incoming@bilbo.ozlabs.org Received: from sourceware.org (server1.sourceware.org [209.132.180.131]) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 221FDB6FF5 for ; Tue, 20 Mar 2012 05:51:02 +1100 (EST) Comment: DKIM? See http://www.dkim.org DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org; s=default; x=1332787863; h=Comment: DomainKey-Signature:Received:Received:Received:Received:Received: Message-ID:Date:From:User-Agent:MIME-Version:To:Subject: Content-Type:Mailing-List:Precedence:List-Id:List-Unsubscribe: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:Sender:Delivered-To; bh=gOQk/4h ZY9/4B8YtzTbeVlXmPqY=; b=IYYVZeb61dYX2100g3WFzlQdGkOhAV8GUhbmivN 1kDsF3WzPEWCcHYOE/w/4m4+TCjVCW7uCip7ZmW0w9LWPoPNF5RmltvQ7pGHJGJF nx6gSFglStVaxigp9p7jY2r/idefLsovQSYRnlQYXuUWa73j48KnL9QQk0LL0qmT vzW0= Comment: DomainKeys? See http://antispam.yahoo.com/domainkeys DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=default; d=gcc.gnu.org; h=Received:Received:X-SWARE-Spam-Status:X-Spam-Check-By:Received:Received:Received:Message-ID:Date:From:User-Agent:MIME-Version:To:Subject:Content-Type:X-IsSubscribed:Mailing-List:Precedence:List-Id:List-Unsubscribe:List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:Sender:Delivered-To; b=s+t1h4vG8wYK+5X0pn3l83t7ill2OXP4BcLvD8laO2kh/l4zTC7a5SpAWxw1yA wfJKBSNzBIl+GJaktbO7znVqPX3XDKuC42biXlnBKu67OVYEsSIk1hllI1wkQRpV vj/GE2+nSq0hiAWYpyfBu68997jDd14uxeYKaHrVNJuAg=; Received: (qmail 18754 invoked by alias); 19 Mar 2012 18:50:54 -0000 Received: (qmail 18739 invoked by uid 22791); 19 Mar 2012 18:50:52 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL, BAYES_00, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI, SPF_HELO_PASS, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 19 Mar 2012 18:50:23 +0000 Received: from int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.23]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q2JIoMrt000978 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Mon, 19 Mar 2012 14:50:23 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([10.3.113.4]) by int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q2JIoMrs010063 for ; Mon, 19 Mar 2012 14:50:22 -0400 Message-ID: <4F677F99.8060501@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2012 14:48:57 -0400 From: Vladimir Makarov User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:10.0.1) Gecko/20120216 Thunderbird/10.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org" Subject: [lra] patch to discourage some register usage on x86/x86-64 X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org Delivered-To: mailing list gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org The following patch discourages usage of BP, R12, and R13 as it results in larger addresses on x86/x86-64. Committed as rev. 185533. 2012-03-19 Vladimir Makarov * config/i386/i386.c (ix86_register_bank): Add special treatment for BP, R12, and R13. Index: config/i386/i386.c =================================================================== --- config/i386/i386.c (revision 185531) +++ config/i386/i386.c (working copy) @@ -30508,14 +30508,21 @@ ix86_free_from_memory (enum machine_mode static int ix86_register_bank (int hard_regno) { + /* ebp and r13 as the base always wants a displacement, r12 as the + base always wants an index. So discourage their usage in an + address. */ + if (hard_regno == R12_REG || hard_regno == R13_REG) + return 4; + if (hard_regno == BP_REG) + return 2; /* New x86-64 int registers result in bigger code size. Discourage them. */ if (FIRST_REX_INT_REG <= hard_regno && hard_regno <= LAST_REX_INT_REG) - return 2; + return 3; /* New x86-64 SSE registers result in bigger code size. Discourage them. */ if (FIRST_REX_SSE_REG <= hard_regno && hard_regno <= LAST_REX_SSE_REG) - return 2; + return 3; /* Usage of AX register results in smaller code. Prefer it. */ if (hard_regno == 0) return 0;