Hello, Richard, Thank you for the feedback.
On Jan 12, 2023, Richard Biener <richard.guent...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Dec 27, 2022 at 5:12 AM Alexandre Oliva via Gcc-patches > <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org> wrote: >> This patch extends the memset expansion to start with a loop, so as to >> still take advantage of known alignment even with long lengths, but >> without necessarily adding store blocks for every power of two. > I wonder if that isn't better handled by targets via the setmem pattern, That was indeed where I started, but then I found myself duplicating the logic in try_store_by_multiple_pieces on a per-target basis. Target-specific code is great for tight optimizations, but the main purpose of this feature is not an optimization. AFAICT it actually slows things down in general (due to code growth, and to conservative assumptions about alignment), except perhaps for some microbenchmarks. It's rather a means to avoid depending on the C runtime, particularly due to compiler-introduced memset calls. My initial goal was to be able to show that inline expansion would NOT bring about performance improvements, but performance was not the concern that led to the request. If the approach seems generally acceptable, I may even end up extending it to other such builtins. I have a vague recollection that memcmp is also an issue for us. > like x86 has the stringop inline strathegy. What is considered acceptable > in terms of size or performance will vary and I don't think there's much > room for improvements on this generic code support? *nod* x86 is quite finely tuned already; I suppose other targets may have some room for additional tuning, both for performance and for code size, but we don't have much affordance for avoiding builtin calls to the C runtime, which is what this is about. Sometimes disabling loop distribution is enough to accomplish that, but in some cases GNAT itself resorts to builtin memset calls, in ways that are not so easy to avoid, and that would ultimately amount to expanding memset inline, so I figured we might as well offer that as a general feature, for users to whom this matters. Is (optionally) tending to this (uncommon, I suppose) need (or preference?) not something GCC would like to do? -- Alexandre Oliva, happy hacker https://FSFLA.org/blogs/lxo/ Free Software Activist GNU Toolchain Engineer Disinformation flourishes because many people care deeply about injustice but very few check the facts. Ask me about <https://stallmansupport.org>
