On Sun, Aug 7, 2022 at 7:04 PM Roger Sayle <ro...@nextmovesoftware.com> wrote:
>
>
> This is a resubmission of my patch from June to fix some forms of
> inefficient
> register allocation using an additional peephole2 in i386.md.
> https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2022-June/596064.html
>
> Since the original, a number of supporting patches/improvements have
> been reviewed and approved, making this peephole even more effective.
> Hence for the simple function:
> __int128 foo(__int128 x, __int128 y) { return x+y; }
>
> mainline GCC on x86_64 with -O2 currently generates:
> movq %rsi, %rax
> movq %rdi, %r8
> movq %rax, %rdi
> movq %rdx, %rax
> movq %rcx, %rdx
> addq %r8, %rax
> adcq %rdi, %rdx
> ret
>
> with this patch we now generate (a three insn improvement):
> movq %rdx, %rax
> movq %rcx, %rdx
> addq %rdi, %rax
> adcq %rsi, %rdx
> ret
>
> Back in June the review of the original patch stalled, as peephole2
> isn't the ideal place to fix this (with which I fully agree), and this patch
> is really just a workaround for a deeper deficiency in reload/lra.
> To address this I've now filed a new enhancement PR in Bugzilla,
> PR rtl-optimization/106518, that describes that underlying issue,
> which might make an interesting (GSoC) project for anyone brave
> (fool hardy) enough to tweak GCC's register allocation.
>
> By comparison, this single peephole can't adversely affect other targets,
> and should the happy day come that it's no longer required, at worst
> would just become a harmless legacy transform that no longer triggers.
>
> I'm also investigating Uros' suggestion that it may be possible for RTL
> expansion to do a better job expanding the function prologue, but
> ultimately the hard register placement constraints are fixed by the
> target ABI, and poor allocation/assignment of hard registers is the
> responsibility/fault of the register allocation passes.
> But it may still be possible to reduce register pressure, but avoiding the
> use of SUBREGs (which keep the source and destination double words
> live during shuffling) along the lines of Richard's CONCAT suggestion.
>
> This patch has been retested again mainline using make bootstrap and
> make -k check, both with and without --target_board=unix{-m32},
> with no new failures. Ok mainline?
>
>
> 2022-08-07 Roger Sayle <ro...@nextmovesoftware.com>
>
> gcc/ChangeLog
> PR target/43644
> PR rtl-optimization/97756
> PR rtl-optimization/98438
> * config/i386/i386.md (define_peephole2): Recognize double word
> swap sequences, and replace them with more efficient idioms,
> including using xchg when optimizing for size.
>
> gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
> PR target/43644
> * gcc.target/i386/pr43644.c: New test case.
+;; Replace a double word swap that requires 4 mov insns with a
+;; 3 mov insn implementation (or an xchg when optimizing for size).
+(define_peephole2
+ [(set (match_operand:DWIH 0 "general_reg_operand")
+ (match_operand:DWIH 1 "general_reg_operand"))
+ (set (match_operand:DWIH 2 "general_reg_operand")
+ (match_operand:DWIH 3 "general_reg_operand"))
+ (clobber (match_operand:<DWI> 4 "general_reg_operand"))
+ (set (match_dup 3) (match_dup 0))
+ (set (match_dup 1) (match_dup 2))]
+ "REGNO (operands[0]) != REGNO (operands[3])
+ && REGNO (operands[1]) != REGNO (operands[2])
+ && REGNO (operands[1]) != REGNO (operands[3])
+ && REGNO (operands[3]) == REGNO (operands[4])
+ && peep2_reg_dead_p (4, operands[0])
+ && peep2_reg_dead_p (5, operands[2])"
+ [(parallel [(set (match_dup 1) (match_dup 3))
+ (set (match_dup 3) (match_dup 1))])]
I'm not sure it is correct to remove the clobber here. Some RTL expert
should comment on this change.
+ if (!optimize_insn_for_size_p ())
+ {
+ rtx tmp = REGNO (operands[0]) > REGNO (operands[2]) ? operands[0]
+ : operands[2];
Hm, this is a strange relation, and it is not obvious why it is done
in that way. Usually, REGNO (op1) != REGNO (op2) does the trick. At
least a comment should be added here.
Uros.
+ emit_move_insn (tmp, operands[1]);
+ emit_move_insn (operands[1], operands[3]);
+ emit_move_insn (operands[3], tmp);
+ DONE;
+ }
>
> Thanks in advance,
> Roger
> --
>
