Re: [AArch64][PR65375] Fix RTX cost for vector SET

[Kugan]

On 17/03/15 03:48, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
> 
> On 16/03/15 13:15, Kugan wrote:
>> On 16/03/15 23:32, Kugan wrote:
>>>>> lower-subreg.c:compute_costs() only cares about the cost of a (set
>>>>> (reg)
>>>>> (const_int )) move but I think the intention, at least for now, is to
>>>>> return extra_cost->vect.alu for all the vector operations.
>>>> Almost, what we want at the moment is COSTS_N_INSNS (1) +
>>>> extra_cost->vect.alu
>>> Thanks Kyrill for the review.
>>>
>>>>> Regression tested on aarch64-linux-gnu with no new regression. Is this
>>>>> OK for trunk?
>>>> Are you sure it's a (set (reg) (const_int)) that's being costed here? I
>>>> thought for moves into vecto registers it would be a (set (reg)
>>>> (const_vector)) which we don't handle in our rtx costs currently. I
>>>> think the correct approach would be to extend the aarch64_rtx_costs
>>>> switch statement to handle the CONST_VECT case. I believe you can use
>>>> aarch64_simd_valid_immediate to check whether x is a valid immediate
>>>> for
>>>> a simd instruction and give it a cost of extra_cost->vect.alu. The
>>>> logic
>>>> should be similar to the CONST_INT case.
>>> Sorry about the (set (reg) (const_int)) above. But the actual RTL that
>>> is being split at 220r.subreg2 is
>>>
>>> (insn 11 10 12 2 (set (subreg:V4SF (reg/v:OI 77 [ __o ]) 0)
>>>           (subreg:V4SF (reg/v:OI 73 [ __o ]) 0))
>>> /home/kugan/work/builds/gcc-fsf-gcc/tools/lib/gcc/aarch64-none-linux-gnu/5.0.0/include/arm_neon.h:22625
>>>
>>> 800 {*aarch64_simd_movv4sf}
>>>        (nil))
>>>
>>> And also, if we return RTX cost above COSTS_N_INSNS (1), it will be
>>> split and it dosent recover from there. Therefore we need something like
>>> the below to prevent that happening.
>>>
>> Hi Kyrill,
>>
>> How about the attached patch? It is similar to what is currently done
>> for scalar register move.
> 
> Hi Kugan,
> yeah, I think this is a better approach, though I can't approve.
> 

Here is the patch with minor comment update. Regression tested on
aarch64-linux-gnu with no new regression. Is this
OK for trunk?

Thanks,
Kugan

gcc/ChangeLog:

2015-03-17  Kugan Vivekanandarajah  <kug...@linaro.org>
            Jim Wilson  <jim.wil...@linaro.org>

        PR target/65375
        * config/aarch64/aarch64.c (aarch64_rtx_costs): Handle
        vector register copies.




diff --git a/gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64.c b/gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64.c
index cba3c1a..d6ad0af 100644
--- a/gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64.c
+++ b/gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64.c
@@ -5544,10 +5544,17 @@ aarch64_rtx_costs (rtx x, int code, int outer 
ATTRIBUTE_UNUSED,
 
          /* Fall through.  */
        case REG:
+         if (VECTOR_MODE_P (GET_MODE (op0)) && REG_P (op1))
+           {
+              /* The cost is 1 per vector-register copied.  */
+              int n_minus_1 = (GET_MODE_SIZE (GET_MODE (op0)) - 1)
+                             / GET_MODE_SIZE (V4SImode);
+              *cost = COSTS_N_INSNS (n_minus_1 + 1);
+           }
          /* const0_rtx is in general free, but we will use an
             instruction to set a register to 0.  */
-          if (REG_P (op1) || op1 == const0_rtx)
-            {
+         else if (REG_P (op1) || op1 == const0_rtx)
+           {
               /* The cost is 1 per register copied.  */
               int n_minus_1 = (GET_MODE_SIZE (GET_MODE (op0)) - 1)
                              / UNITS_PER_WORD;