@@ -8874,26 +8874,43 @@ riscv_macro_fusion_pair_p (rtx_insn *prev, rtx_insn *curr)
extract_base_offset_in_addr (SET_DEST (prev_set), &base_prev, &offset_prev);
extract_base_offset_in_addr (SET_DEST (curr_set), &base_curr, &offset_curr);
- /* The two stores must be contained within opposite halves of the same
- 16 byte aligned block of memory. We know that the stack pointer and
- the frame pointer have suitable alignment. So we just need to check
- the offsets of the two stores for suitable alignment.
-
- Originally the thought was to check MEM_ALIGN, but that was reporting
- incorrect alignments, even for SP/FP accesses, so we gave up on that
- approach. */
- if (base_prev != NULL_RTX
- && base_curr != NULL_RTX
- && REG_P (base_prev)
- && REG_P (base_curr)
- && REGNO (base_prev) == REGNO (base_curr)
- && (REGNO (base_prev) == STACK_POINTER_REGNUM
- || REGNO (base_prev) == HARD_FRAME_POINTER_REGNUM)
- && ((INTVAL (offset_prev) == INTVAL (offset_curr) + 8
- && (INTVAL (offset_prev) % 16) == 0)
- || ((INTVAL (offset_curr) == INTVAL (offset_prev) + 8)
- && (INTVAL (offset_curr) % 16) == 0)))
- return true;
+ /* Fail if we did not find both bases. */
+ if (base_prev == NULL_RTX || base_curr == NULL_RTX)
+ return false;
+
+ /* Fail if either base is not a register. */
+ if (!REG_P (base_prev) || !REG_P (base_curr))
+ return false;
+
+ /* Fail if the bases are not the same register. */
+ if (REGNO (base_prev) != REGNO (base_curr))
+ return false;
+
+ /* Originally the thought was to check MEM_ALIGN, but that was
+ reporting incorrect alignments, even for SP/FP accesses, so we
+ gave up on that approach. Instead just check for stack/hfp
+ which we know are aligned. */
+ if (REGNO (base_prev) != STACK_POINTER_REGNUM
+ && REGNO (base_prev) != HARD_FRAME_POINTER_REGNUM)
+ return false;
+
+ /* The two stores must be contained within opposite halves of the
+ same 16 byte aligned block of memory. We know that the stack
+ pointer and the frame pointer have suitable alignment. So we
+ just need to check the offsets of the two stores for suitable
+ alignment. */
+ /* Get the smaller offset into OFFSET_PREV. */
+ if (INTVAL (offset_prev) > INTVAL (offset_curr))
+ std::swap (offset_prev, offset_curr);
+
+ /* If the smaller offset (OFFSET_PREV) is not 16 byte aligned,
+ then fail. */
+ if ((INTVAL (offset_prev) % 16) != 0)
+ return false;
+
+ /* The higher offset must be 8 bytes more than the lower
+ offset. */
+ return (INTVAL (offset_prev) + 8 == INTVAL (offset_curr));
}
}
We've got the ability to count the number of store pair fusions happening in the front-end of the pipeline. When comparing some code from last year vs the current trunk we saw a fairly dramatic drop. The problem is the store pair fusion detection code was actively harmful due to a minor bug in checking offsets. So instead of pairing up 8 byte stores such as sp+0 with sp+8, it tried to pair up sp+8 and sp+16. Given uarch sensitivity I didn't try to pull together a testcase. But we could certainly see the undesirable behavior in benchmarks as simplistic as dhrystone up through spec2017. Anyway, bootstrapped a while back. Also verified through our performance counters that store pair fusion rates are back up. Regression tested with crosses a few minutes ago. Pushing to the trunk and coordination branch. jeff commit fad93e7617ce1aafb006983a71b6edc9ae1eb2d1 Author: Jeff Law <jlaw@ventanamicro.com> Date: Wed May 1 11:28:41 2024 -0600 [committed] [RISC-V] Fix detection of store pair fusion cases We've got the ability to count the number of store pair fusions happening in the front-end of the pipeline. When comparing some code from last year vs the current trunk we saw a fairly dramatic drop. The problem is the store pair fusion detection code was actively harmful due to a minor bug in checking offsets. So instead of pairing up 8 byte stores such as sp+0 with sp+8, it tried to pair up sp+8 and sp+16. Given uarch sensitivity I didn't try to pull together a testcase. But we could certainly see the undesirable behavior in benchmarks as simplistic as dhrystone up through spec2017. Anyway, bootstrapped a while back. Also verified through our performance counters that store pair fusion rates are back up. Regression tested with crosses a few minutes ago. gcc/ * config/riscv/riscv.cc (riscv_macro_fusion_pair_p): Break out tests for easier debugging in store pair fusion case. Fix offset check in same.