On 11/10/22 14:34, Philipp Tomsich wrote:
The strength-reduction implementation in expmed.cc will assess the
profitability of using shift-and-add using a RTL expression that wraps
a MULT (with a power-of-2) in a PLUS. Unless the RISC-V rtx_costs
function recognizes this as expressing a sh[123]add instruction, we
will return an inflated cost---thus defeating the optimization.
This change adds the necessary idiom recognition to provide an
accurate cost for this for of expressing sh[123]add.
Instead on expanding to
li a5,200
mulw a0,a5,a0
with this change, the expression 'a * 200' is sythesized as:
sh2add a0,a0,a0 // *5 = a + 4 * a
sh2add a0,a0,a0 // *5 = a + 4 * a
slli a0,a0,3 // *8
gcc/ChangeLog:
* config/riscv/riscv.c (riscv_rtx_costs): Recognize shNadd,
if expressed as a plus and multiplication with a power-of-2.
Split costing for MINUS from PLUS.
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
* gcc.target/riscv/zba-shNadd-07.c: New test.
OK. Note that getting this right can impact one of the spec2017 integer
benchmarks notably. I don't recall which one, but it has a div and a
mod by the same constant which is fairly reasonably implement with
shifts and adds. You won't see it in instruction count data, but would
see it if you had cycle count data or instrumented for div/mod instructions.
Jeff
