On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 02:30:59PM +0100, Ulrich Weigand wrote: > Alan Modra wrote: > > > Normally, reload 2, the secondary reload for reload 3, would result in > > a call to reload_v16qi_si_load with (reg:V16QI 78 1) as its "reg" > > argument, and the mem home for pseudo reg 159 as its "mem" arg. > > > > However, reload1.c:choose_reload_regs has code to, as the comment > > says: > > /* First see if this pseudo is already available as reloaded > > for a previous insn. > > > > In this case reload finds such a register, so reload_v16qi_si_load > > then sees the register as its "mem" argument, and spits the dummy. > > This still seems odd to me, I don't think the intent was that the > back-end secondary reload code is supposed to handle such cases. > > Instead, there's code in emit_input_reload_insns that is supposed > to re-check whether a secondary reload is still needed if something > changed significantly, e.g. if a value was inherited: > > /* If we have a secondary reload, pick up the secondary register > and icode, if any. If OLDEQUIV and OLD are different or > if this is an in-out reload, recompute whether or not we > still need a secondary register and what the icode should > be. If we still need a secondary register and the class or > icode is different, go back to reloading from OLD if using > OLDEQUIV means that we got the wrong type of register. We > cannot have different class or icode due to an in-out reload > because we don't make such reloads when both the input and > output need secondary reload registers. */ > > Note the condition "if OLDEQUIV and OLD are different" should be > true if the input value was inherited. Can you check whether > this case is hit with your test case?
No. oldequiv and old are both (reg:V16QI 32 0). reload_override_in[j] is (reg:V16QI 32 0), and rl->in_reg is (subreg:V16QI (reg:V2DI 159 [ D.2446 ]) 0), so perhaps we're missing a subreg test in if (reload_override_in[j] && REG_P (rl->in_reg)) { oldequiv = old; old = rl->in_reg; } I'll follow this up after getting some sleep. Right now I'm too tired to think straight. Note that rs6000_secondary_reload_inner is not emitting a nop.. c4: 39 21 00 40 addi r9,r1,64 c8: 38 61 00 20 addi r3,r1,32 cc: 7c 3c ee 99 lxvd2x vs33,r28,r29 d0: 7c 1f ee 98 lxvd2x vs0,r31,r29 d4: 38 9f 00 d0 addi r4,r31,208 d8: 38 a0 00 10 li r5,16 dc: 7c 00 4f 98 stxvd2x vs0,0,r9 (1) e0: 10 01 ed c4 vsld v0,v1,v29 e4: f0 20 04 91 xxlor vs33,vs0,vs0 (2) e8: 10 00 07 ab vperm v0,v0,v0,v30 ec: 10 00 f8 00 vaddubm v0,v0,v31 f0: 10 01 08 2b vperm v0,v1,v1,v0 (3) (1) the previous reload of pseudo 159 (2) the insn emitted by rs6000_secondary_reload_inner (3) insn 61 (v1==vs33) -- Alan Modra Australia Development Lab, IBM