Re: [PING**2] [PATCH, ARM] Further improve stack usage on sha512 (PR 77308)

[Bernd Edlinger]

On 09/05/17 23:27, Wilco Dijkstra wrote:
> Bernd Edlinger wrote:
>> No, the split condition does not begin with "&& TARGET_32BIT...".
>> Therefore the split is enabled in TARGET_NEON after reload_completed.
>> And it is invoked from adddi3_neon for all alternatives without vfp
>> registers:
> 
> Hmm that's a huge mess. I'd argue that any inst_and_split should only split
> it's own instruction, never other instructions (especially if they are from
> different md files, which is extremely confusing). Otherwise we should use
> a separate split and explicitly list which instructions it splits.
> 

This is literally a mine-field.

> So then the next question is whether the neon_adddi3 still needs the
> arm_adddi3 splitter in some odd corner cases?
> 

Yes, I think so.
While *arm_adddi3 and adddi3_neon insn are mutually exclusive,
they share the splitter.

I don't know with which iwmmxt-pattern the *arm_adddi3-splitter might
interfere, therefore I don't know if the !TARGET_IWMMXT can be removed
from the splitter condition.


Other patterns have a iwmmxt-twin that is not mutually exclusive.
For instance *anddi_notdi_di, bicdi3_neon and iwmmxt_nanddi3
The bicdi3_neon insn duplicates the alternatives while iwmmxt does not.

And nobody is able to test iwmmxt.

>>> Also there are more cases, a quick grep suggests *anddi_notdi_di has the 
>>> same issue.
> 
>> Yes, that pattern can be cleaned up in a follow-up patch.
> 
> And there are a lot more instructions that need the same treatment and split
> early (probably best at expand time). I noticed none of the zero/sign extends
> split before regalloc for example.
> 

I did use the test cases as benchmarks to decide which way to go.

It is quite easy to try different combinations of cpu and inspect
the stack usage of neon, iwmmxt, and vfp etc.

It may be due to interaction with other patterns, but not in every case
the split at expand time produced the best results.

>> Note this splitter is invoked from bicdi3_neon as well.
>> However I think anddi_notdi_di should be safe as long as it is enabled
>> after reload_completed (which is probably a bug).
> 
> Since we should be splitting and/bic early now I don't think you can get 
> anddi_notdi
> anymore. So it could be removed completely assuming Neon already does the 
> right
> thing.
> > It looks like we need to do a full pass over all DI mode instructions 
and clean up
> all the mess.
> 

Yes, but in small steps, and using some benchmarks to make sure that
each step does improve at least something.


Bernd.

> Wilco
> 

Re: [PING**2] [PATCH, ARM] Further improve stack usage on sha512 (PR 77308)

[Christophe Lyon]

On 5 September 2017 at 20:20, Christophe Lyon
 wrote:
> On 5 September 2017 at 19:53, Kyrill  Tkachov
>  wrote:
>>
>> On 05/09/17 18:48, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
>>>
>>> On 09/05/17 17:02, Wilco Dijkstra wrote:

 Bernd Edlinger wrote:

> Combine creates an invalid insn out of these two insns:

 Yes it looks like a latent bug. We need to use
 arm_general_register_operand
 as arm_adddi3/subdi3 only allow integer registers. You don't need a new
 predicate
 s_register_operand_nv. Also I'd prefer something like
 arm_general_adddi_operand.

>>> Thanks, attached is a patch following your suggestion.
>>>
 +  "TARGET_32BIT && ((!TARGET_NEON && !TARGET_IWMMXT) ||
 reload_completed)"

 The split condition for adddi3 now looks more accurate indeed, although
 we could
 remove the !TARGET_NEON from the split condition as this is always true
 given
 arm_adddi3 uses "TARGET_32BIT && !TARGET_NEON".

>>> No, the split condition does not begin with "&& TARGET_32BIT...".
>>> Therefore the split is enabled in TARGET_NEON after reload_completed.
>>> And it is invoked from adddi3_neon for all alternatives without vfp
>>> registers:
>>>
>>> switch (which_alternative)
>>>   {
>>>   case 0: /* fall through */
>>>   case 3: return "vadd.i64\t%P0, %P1, %P2";
>>>   case 1: return "#";
>>>   case 2: return "#";
>>>   case 4: return "#";
>>>   case 5: return "#";
>>>   case 6: return "#";
>>>
>>>
>>>
 Also there are more cases, a quick grep suggests *anddi_notdi_di has the
 same issue.

>>> Yes, that pattern can be cleaned up in a follow-up patch.
>>> Note this splitter is invoked from bicdi3_neon as well.
>>> However I think anddi_notdi_di should be safe as long as it is enabled
>>> after reload_completed (which is probably a bug).
>>>
>>
>> Thanks, that's what I had in mind in my other reply.
>> This is ok if testing comes back ok.
>>
>
> I've submitted the patch for testing, I'll let you know about the results.
>

I can confirm the last patch does fix the regression I reported, and causes
no other regression. (The previous previous of the fix, worked, too).

Thanks for the prompt fix.

Christophe

> Christophe
>
>> Kyrill
>>
>>
>>> Bernd.
>>>
 Wilco

>>

Re: [PING**2] [PATCH, ARM] Further improve stack usage on sha512 (PR 77308)

[Wilco Dijkstra]

Bernd Edlinger wrote:
> No, the split condition does not begin with "&& TARGET_32BIT...".
> Therefore the split is enabled in TARGET_NEON after reload_completed.
> And it is invoked from adddi3_neon for all alternatives without vfp
> registers:

Hmm that's a huge mess. I'd argue that any inst_and_split should only split
it's own instruction, never other instructions (especially if they are from
different md files, which is extremely confusing). Otherwise we should use
a separate split and explicitly list which instructions it splits.

So then the next question is whether the neon_adddi3 still needs the
arm_adddi3 splitter in some odd corner cases?

> > Also there are more cases, a quick grep suggests *anddi_notdi_di has the 
> > same issue. 

> Yes, that pattern can be cleaned up in a follow-up patch.

And there are a lot more instructions that need the same treatment and split
early (probably best at expand time). I noticed none of the zero/sign extends
split before regalloc for example.

> Note this splitter is invoked from bicdi3_neon as well.
> However I think anddi_notdi_di should be safe as long as it is enabled
> after reload_completed (which is probably a bug).

Since we should be splitting and/bic early now I don't think you can get 
anddi_notdi
anymore. So it could be removed completely assuming Neon already does the right
thing.

It looks like we need to do a full pass over all DI mode instructions and clean 
up
all the mess.

Wilco

Re: [PING**2] [PATCH, ARM] Further improve stack usage on sha512 (PR 77308)

[Christophe Lyon]

On 5 September 2017 at 19:53, Kyrill  Tkachov
 wrote:
>
> On 05/09/17 18:48, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
>>
>> On 09/05/17 17:02, Wilco Dijkstra wrote:
>>>
>>> Bernd Edlinger wrote:
>>>
 Combine creates an invalid insn out of these two insns:
>>>
>>> Yes it looks like a latent bug. We need to use
>>> arm_general_register_operand
>>> as arm_adddi3/subdi3 only allow integer registers. You don't need a new
>>> predicate
>>> s_register_operand_nv. Also I'd prefer something like
>>> arm_general_adddi_operand.
>>>
>> Thanks, attached is a patch following your suggestion.
>>
>>> +  "TARGET_32BIT && ((!TARGET_NEON && !TARGET_IWMMXT) ||
>>> reload_completed)"
>>>
>>> The split condition for adddi3 now looks more accurate indeed, although
>>> we could
>>> remove the !TARGET_NEON from the split condition as this is always true
>>> given
>>> arm_adddi3 uses "TARGET_32BIT && !TARGET_NEON".
>>>
>> No, the split condition does not begin with "&& TARGET_32BIT...".
>> Therefore the split is enabled in TARGET_NEON after reload_completed.
>> And it is invoked from adddi3_neon for all alternatives without vfp
>> registers:
>>
>> switch (which_alternative)
>>   {
>>   case 0: /* fall through */
>>   case 3: return "vadd.i64\t%P0, %P1, %P2";
>>   case 1: return "#";
>>   case 2: return "#";
>>   case 4: return "#";
>>   case 5: return "#";
>>   case 6: return "#";
>>
>>
>>
>>> Also there are more cases, a quick grep suggests *anddi_notdi_di has the
>>> same issue.
>>>
>> Yes, that pattern can be cleaned up in a follow-up patch.
>> Note this splitter is invoked from bicdi3_neon as well.
>> However I think anddi_notdi_di should be safe as long as it is enabled
>> after reload_completed (which is probably a bug).
>>
>
> Thanks, that's what I had in mind in my other reply.
> This is ok if testing comes back ok.
>

I've submitted the patch for testing, I'll let you know about the results.

Christophe

> Kyrill
>
>
>> Bernd.
>>
>>> Wilco
>>>
>

Re: [PING**2] [PATCH, ARM] Further improve stack usage on sha512 (PR 77308)

[Kyrill Tkachov]

On 05/09/17 18:48, Bernd Edlinger wrote:

On 09/05/17 17:02, Wilco Dijkstra wrote:

Bernd Edlinger wrote:


Combine creates an invalid insn out of these two insns:

Yes it looks like a latent bug. We need to use arm_general_register_operand
as arm_adddi3/subdi3 only allow integer registers. You don't need a new 
predicate
s_register_operand_nv. Also I'd prefer something like arm_general_adddi_operand.


Thanks, attached is a patch following your suggestion.


+  "TARGET_32BIT && ((!TARGET_NEON && !TARGET_IWMMXT) || reload_completed)"

The split condition for adddi3 now looks more accurate indeed, although we could
remove the !TARGET_NEON from the split condition as this is always true given
arm_adddi3 uses "TARGET_32BIT && !TARGET_NEON".


No, the split condition does not begin with "&& TARGET_32BIT...".
Therefore the split is enabled in TARGET_NEON after reload_completed.
And it is invoked from adddi3_neon for all alternatives without vfp
registers:

switch (which_alternative)
  {
  case 0: /* fall through */
  case 3: return "vadd.i64\t%P0, %P1, %P2";
  case 1: return "#";
  case 2: return "#";
  case 4: return "#";
  case 5: return "#";
  case 6: return "#";




Also there are more cases, a quick grep suggests *anddi_notdi_di has the same 
issue.


Yes, that pattern can be cleaned up in a follow-up patch.
Note this splitter is invoked from bicdi3_neon as well.
However I think anddi_notdi_di should be safe as long as it is enabled
after reload_completed (which is probably a bug).



Thanks, that's what I had in mind in my other reply.
This is ok if testing comes back ok.

Kyrill



Bernd.


Wilco

Re: [PING**2] [PATCH, ARM] Further improve stack usage on sha512 (PR 77308)

[Bernd Edlinger]

On 09/05/17 17:02, Wilco Dijkstra wrote:
> Bernd Edlinger wrote:
> 
>> Combine creates an invalid insn out of these two insns:
> 
> Yes it looks like a latent bug. We need to use arm_general_register_operand
> as arm_adddi3/subdi3 only allow integer registers. You don't need a new 
> predicate
> s_register_operand_nv. Also I'd prefer something like 
> arm_general_adddi_operand.
> 

Thanks, attached is a patch following your suggestion.

> +  "TARGET_32BIT && ((!TARGET_NEON && !TARGET_IWMMXT) || reload_completed)"
> 
> The split condition for adddi3 now looks more accurate indeed, although we 
> could
> remove the !TARGET_NEON from the split condition as this is always true given
> arm_adddi3 uses "TARGET_32BIT && !TARGET_NEON".
> 

No, the split condition does not begin with "&& TARGET_32BIT...".
Therefore the split is enabled in TARGET_NEON after reload_completed.
And it is invoked from adddi3_neon for all alternatives without vfp
registers:

   switch (which_alternative)
 {
 case 0: /* fall through */
 case 3: return "vadd.i64\t%P0, %P1, %P2";
 case 1: return "#";
 case 2: return "#";
 case 4: return "#";
 case 5: return "#";
 case 6: return "#";



> Also there are more cases, a quick grep suggests *anddi_notdi_di has the same 
> issue.
> 

Yes, that pattern can be cleaned up in a follow-up patch.
Note this splitter is invoked from bicdi3_neon as well.
However I think anddi_notdi_di should be safe as long as it is enabled
after reload_completed (which is probably a bug).


Bernd.

> Wilco
> 
2017-09-05  Bernd Edlinger  

	PR target/77308
	* config/arm/predicates.md (arm_general_adddi_operand): Create new
	non-vfp predicate.
	* config/arm/arm.md (*arm_adddi3, *arm_subdi3): Use new predicates.

Index: gcc/config/arm/arm.md
===
--- gcc/config/arm/arm.md	(revision 251663)
+++ gcc/config/arm/arm.md	(working copy)
@@ -457,14 +457,13 @@
 )
 
 (define_insn_and_split "*arm_adddi3"
-  [(set (match_operand:DI  0 "s_register_operand" "=")
-	(plus:DI (match_operand:DI 1 "s_register_operand" "%0, 0, r, 0, r")
-		 (match_operand:DI 2 "arm_adddi_operand"  "r,  0, r, Dd, Dd")))
+  [(set (match_operand:DI  0 "arm_general_register_operand" "=")
+	(plus:DI (match_operand:DI 1 "arm_general_register_operand" "%0, 0, r, 0, r")
+		 (match_operand:DI 2 "arm_general_adddi_operand""r,  0, r, Dd, Dd")))
(clobber (reg:CC CC_REGNUM))]
   "TARGET_32BIT && !TARGET_NEON"
   "#"
-  "TARGET_32BIT && ((!TARGET_NEON && !TARGET_IWMMXT) || reload_completed)
-   && ! (TARGET_NEON && IS_VFP_REGNUM (REGNO (operands[0])))"
+  "TARGET_32BIT && ((!TARGET_NEON && !TARGET_IWMMXT) || reload_completed)"
   [(parallel [(set (reg:CC_C CC_REGNUM)
 		   (compare:CC_C (plus:SI (match_dup 1) (match_dup 2))
  (match_dup 1)))
@@ -1263,9 +1262,9 @@
 )
 
 (define_insn_and_split "*arm_subdi3"
-  [(set (match_operand:DI   0 "s_register_operand" "=,,")
-	(minus:DI (match_operand:DI 1 "s_register_operand" "0,r,0")
-		  (match_operand:DI 2 "s_register_operand" "r,0,0")))
+  [(set (match_operand:DI   0 "arm_general_register_operand" "=,,")
+	(minus:DI (match_operand:DI 1 "arm_general_register_operand" "0,r,0")
+		  (match_operand:DI 2 "arm_general_register_operand" "r,0,0")))
(clobber (reg:CC CC_REGNUM))]
   "TARGET_32BIT && !TARGET_NEON"
   "#"  ; "subs\\t%Q0, %Q1, %Q2\;sbc\\t%R0, %R1, %R2"
Index: gcc/config/arm/predicates.md
===
--- gcc/config/arm/predicates.md	(revision 251663)
+++ gcc/config/arm/predicates.md	(working copy)
@@ -82,6 +82,11 @@
 	  || REGNO (op) >= FIRST_PSEUDO_REGISTER));
 })
 
+(define_predicate "arm_general_adddi_operand"
+  (ior (match_operand 0 "arm_general_register_operand")
+   (and (match_code "const_int")
+	(match_test "const_ok_for_dimode_op (INTVAL (op), PLUS)"
+
 (define_predicate "vfp_register_operand"
   (match_code "reg,subreg")
 {

Re: [PING**2] [PATCH, ARM] Further improve stack usage on sha512 (PR 77308)

[Kyrill Tkachov]

Hi Bernd,

On 05/09/17 15:25, Bernd Edlinger wrote:

Hi Christophe,

On 09/05/17 10:45, Christophe Lyon wrote:

Hi Bernd,


On 4 September 2017 at 16:52, Kyrill  Tkachov
 wrote:

On 29/04/17 18:45, Bernd Edlinger wrote:

Ping...

I attached a rebased version since there was a merge conflict in
the xordi3 pattern, otherwise the patch is still identical.
It splits adddi3, subdi3, anddi3, iordi3, xordi3 and one_cmpldi2
early when the target has no neon or iwmmxt.


Thanks
Bernd.



On 11/28/16 20:42, Bernd Edlinger wrote:

On 11/25/16 12:30, Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote:

On Sun, Nov 6, 2016 at 2:18 PM, Bernd Edlinger
 wrote:

Hi!

This improves the stack usage on the sha512 test case for the case
without hardware fpu and without iwmmxt by splitting all di-mode
patterns right while expanding which is similar to what the
shift-pattern
does.  It does nothing in the case iwmmxt and fpu=neon or vfp as well
as
thumb1.


I would go further and do this in the absence of Neon, the VFP unit
being there doesn't help with DImode operations i.e. we do not have 64
bit integer arithmetic instructions without Neon. The main reason why
we have the DImode patterns split so late is to give a chance for
folks who want to do 64 bit arithmetic in Neon a chance to make this
work as well as support some of the 64 bit Neon intrinsics which IIRC
map down to these instructions. Doing this just for soft-float doesn't
improve the default case only. I don't usually test iwmmxt and I'm not
sure who has the ability to do so, thus keeping this restriction for
iwMMX is fine.



Yes I understand, thanks for pointing that out.

I was not aware what iwmmxt exists at all, but I noticed that most
64bit expansions work completely different, and would break if we split
the pattern early.

I can however only look at the assembler outout for iwmmxt, and make
sure that the stack usage does not get worse.

Thus the new version of the patch keeps only thumb1, neon and iwmmxt as
it is: around 1570 (thumb1), 2300 (neon) and 2200 (wimmxt) bytes stack
for the test cases, and vfp and soft-float at around 270 bytes stack
usage.


It reduces the stack usage from 2300 to near optimal 272 bytes (!).

Note this also splits many ldrd/strd instructions and therefore I will
post a followup-patch that mitigates this effect by enabling the
ldrd/strd
peephole optimization after the necessary reg-testing.


Bootstrapped and reg-tested on arm-linux-gnueabihf.

What do you mean by arm-linux-gnueabihf - when folks say that I
interpret it as --with-arch=armv7-a --with-float=hard
--with-fpu=vfpv3-d16 or (--with-fpu=neon).

If you've really bootstrapped and regtested it on armhf, doesn't this
patch as it stand have no effect there i.e. no change ?
arm-linux-gnueabihf usually means to me someone has configured with
--with-float=hard, so there are no regressions in the hard float ABI
case,


I know it proves little.  When I say arm-linux-gnueabihf
I do in fact mean --enable-languages=all,ada,go,obj-c++
--with-arch=armv7-a --with-tune=cortex-a9 --with-fpu=vfpv3-d16
--with-float=hard.

My main interest in the stack usage is of course not because of linux,
but because of eCos where we have very small task stacks and in fact
no fpu support by the O/S at all, so that patch is exactly what we need.


Bootstrapped and reg-tested on arm-linux-gnueabihf
Is it OK for trunk?


The code is ok.
AFAICS testing this with --with-fpu=vfpv3-d16 does exercise the new code as
the splits
will happen for !TARGET_NEON (it is of course !TARGET_IWMMXT and
TARGET_IWMMXT2
is irrelevant here).

So this is ok for trunk.
Thanks, and sorry again for the delay.
Kyrill


This patch (r251663) causes a regression on armeb-none-linux-gnueabihf
--with-mode arm
--with-cpu cortex-a9
--with-fpu vfpv3-d16-fp16
FAIL:gcc.dg/vect/vect-singleton_1.c (internal compiler error)
FAIL:gcc.dg/vect/vect-singleton_1.c -flto -ffat-lto-objects
(internal compiler error)

the test passes if gcc is configured --with-fpu neon-fp16


Thank you very much for what you do!

I am able to reproduce this.

Combine creates an invalid insn out of these two insns:

(insn 12 8 18 2 (parallel [
  (set (reg:DI 122)
  (plus:DI (reg:DI 116 [ aD.5331 ])
  (reg:DI 119 [ bD.5332 ])))
  (clobber (reg:CC 100 cc))
  ]) "vect-singleton_1.c":28 1 {*arm_adddi3}
   (expr_list:REG_DEAD (reg:DI 119 [ bD.5332 ])
  (expr_list:REG_DEAD (reg:DI 116 [ aD.5331 ])
  (expr_list:REG_UNUSED (reg:CC 100 cc)
  (nil)
(insn 18 12 19 2 (set (reg/i:DI 16 s0)
  (reg:DI 122)) "vect-singleton_1.c":28 650 {*movdi_vfp}
   (expr_list:REG_DEAD (reg:DI 122)
  (nil)))

=>

(insn 18 12 19 2 (parallel [
  (set (reg/i:DI 16 s0)
  (plus:DI (reg:DI 116 [ aD.5331 ])
  (reg:DI 119 [ bD.5332 ])))
  (clobber (reg:CC 100 cc))
  ]) 

Re: [PING**2] [PATCH, ARM] Further improve stack usage on sha512 (PR 77308)

[Wilco Dijkstra]

Bernd Edlinger wrote:

> Combine creates an invalid insn out of these two insns:

Yes it looks like a latent bug. We need to use arm_general_register_operand
as arm_adddi3/subdi3 only allow integer registers. You don't need a new 
predicate
s_register_operand_nv. Also I'd prefer something like arm_general_adddi_operand.

+  "TARGET_32BIT && ((!TARGET_NEON && !TARGET_IWMMXT) || reload_completed)"

The split condition for adddi3 now looks more accurate indeed, although we could
remove the !TARGET_NEON from the split condition as this is always true given
arm_adddi3 uses "TARGET_32BIT && !TARGET_NEON".

Also there are more cases, a quick grep suggests *anddi_notdi_di has the same 
issue.

Wilco

Re: [PING**2] [PATCH, ARM] Further improve stack usage on sha512 (PR 77308)

[Bernd Edlinger]

Hi Christophe,

On 09/05/17 10:45, Christophe Lyon wrote:
> Hi Bernd,
> 
> 
> On 4 September 2017 at 16:52, Kyrill  Tkachov
>  wrote:
>>
>> On 29/04/17 18:45, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
>>>
>>> Ping...
>>>
>>> I attached a rebased version since there was a merge conflict in
>>> the xordi3 pattern, otherwise the patch is still identical.
>>> It splits adddi3, subdi3, anddi3, iordi3, xordi3 and one_cmpldi2
>>> early when the target has no neon or iwmmxt.
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>> Bernd.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 11/28/16 20:42, Bernd Edlinger wrote:

 On 11/25/16 12:30, Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote:
>
> On Sun, Nov 6, 2016 at 2:18 PM, Bernd Edlinger
>  wrote:
>>
>> Hi!
>>
>> This improves the stack usage on the sha512 test case for the case
>> without hardware fpu and without iwmmxt by splitting all di-mode
>> patterns right while expanding which is similar to what the
>> shift-pattern
>> does.  It does nothing in the case iwmmxt and fpu=neon or vfp as well
>> as
>> thumb1.
>>
> I would go further and do this in the absence of Neon, the VFP unit
> being there doesn't help with DImode operations i.e. we do not have 64
> bit integer arithmetic instructions without Neon. The main reason why
> we have the DImode patterns split so late is to give a chance for
> folks who want to do 64 bit arithmetic in Neon a chance to make this
> work as well as support some of the 64 bit Neon intrinsics which IIRC
> map down to these instructions. Doing this just for soft-float doesn't
> improve the default case only. I don't usually test iwmmxt and I'm not
> sure who has the ability to do so, thus keeping this restriction for
> iwMMX is fine.
>
>
 Yes I understand, thanks for pointing that out.

 I was not aware what iwmmxt exists at all, but I noticed that most
 64bit expansions work completely different, and would break if we split
 the pattern early.

 I can however only look at the assembler outout for iwmmxt, and make
 sure that the stack usage does not get worse.

 Thus the new version of the patch keeps only thumb1, neon and iwmmxt as
 it is: around 1570 (thumb1), 2300 (neon) and 2200 (wimmxt) bytes stack
 for the test cases, and vfp and soft-float at around 270 bytes stack
 usage.

>> It reduces the stack usage from 2300 to near optimal 272 bytes (!).
>>
>> Note this also splits many ldrd/strd instructions and therefore I will
>> post a followup-patch that mitigates this effect by enabling the
>> ldrd/strd
>> peephole optimization after the necessary reg-testing.
>>
>>
>> Bootstrapped and reg-tested on arm-linux-gnueabihf.
>
> What do you mean by arm-linux-gnueabihf - when folks say that I
> interpret it as --with-arch=armv7-a --with-float=hard
> --with-fpu=vfpv3-d16 or (--with-fpu=neon).
>
> If you've really bootstrapped and regtested it on armhf, doesn't this
> patch as it stand have no effect there i.e. no change ?
> arm-linux-gnueabihf usually means to me someone has configured with
> --with-float=hard, so there are no regressions in the hard float ABI
> case,
>
 I know it proves little.  When I say arm-linux-gnueabihf
 I do in fact mean --enable-languages=all,ada,go,obj-c++
 --with-arch=armv7-a --with-tune=cortex-a9 --with-fpu=vfpv3-d16
 --with-float=hard.

 My main interest in the stack usage is of course not because of linux,
 but because of eCos where we have very small task stacks and in fact
 no fpu support by the O/S at all, so that patch is exactly what we need.


 Bootstrapped and reg-tested on arm-linux-gnueabihf
 Is it OK for trunk?
>>
>>
>> The code is ok.
>> AFAICS testing this with --with-fpu=vfpv3-d16 does exercise the new code as
>> the splits
>> will happen for !TARGET_NEON (it is of course !TARGET_IWMMXT and
>> TARGET_IWMMXT2
>> is irrelevant here).
>>
>> So this is ok for trunk.
>> Thanks, and sorry again for the delay.
>> Kyrill
>>
> 
> This patch (r251663) causes a regression on armeb-none-linux-gnueabihf
> --with-mode arm
> --with-cpu cortex-a9
> --with-fpu vfpv3-d16-fp16
> FAIL:gcc.dg/vect/vect-singleton_1.c (internal compiler error)
> FAIL:gcc.dg/vect/vect-singleton_1.c -flto -ffat-lto-objects
> (internal compiler error)
> 
> the test passes if gcc is configured --with-fpu neon-fp16
> 

Thank you very much for what you do!

I am able to reproduce this.

Combine creates an invalid insn out of these two insns:

(insn 12 8 18 2 (parallel [
 (set (reg:DI 122)
 (plus:DI (reg:DI 116 [ aD.5331 ])
 (reg:DI 119 [ bD.5332 ])))
 (clobber (reg:CC 100 cc))
 ]) "vect-singleton_1.c":28 1 {*arm_adddi3}
  (expr_list:REG_DEAD (reg:DI 119 [ bD.5332 ])
 (expr_list:REG_DEAD (reg:DI 116 [ aD.5331 

Re: [PING**2] [PATCH, ARM] Further improve stack usage on sha512 (PR 77308)

[Christophe Lyon]

Hi Bernd,


On 4 September 2017 at 16:52, Kyrill  Tkachov
 wrote:
>
> On 29/04/17 18:45, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
>>
>> Ping...
>>
>> I attached a rebased version since there was a merge conflict in
>> the xordi3 pattern, otherwise the patch is still identical.
>> It splits adddi3, subdi3, anddi3, iordi3, xordi3 and one_cmpldi2
>> early when the target has no neon or iwmmxt.
>>
>>
>> Thanks
>> Bernd.
>>
>>
>>
>> On 11/28/16 20:42, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
>>>
>>> On 11/25/16 12:30, Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote:

 On Sun, Nov 6, 2016 at 2:18 PM, Bernd Edlinger
  wrote:
>
> Hi!
>
> This improves the stack usage on the sha512 test case for the case
> without hardware fpu and without iwmmxt by splitting all di-mode
> patterns right while expanding which is similar to what the
> shift-pattern
> does.  It does nothing in the case iwmmxt and fpu=neon or vfp as well
> as
> thumb1.
>
 I would go further and do this in the absence of Neon, the VFP unit
 being there doesn't help with DImode operations i.e. we do not have 64
 bit integer arithmetic instructions without Neon. The main reason why
 we have the DImode patterns split so late is to give a chance for
 folks who want to do 64 bit arithmetic in Neon a chance to make this
 work as well as support some of the 64 bit Neon intrinsics which IIRC
 map down to these instructions. Doing this just for soft-float doesn't
 improve the default case only. I don't usually test iwmmxt and I'm not
 sure who has the ability to do so, thus keeping this restriction for
 iwMMX is fine.


>>> Yes I understand, thanks for pointing that out.
>>>
>>> I was not aware what iwmmxt exists at all, but I noticed that most
>>> 64bit expansions work completely different, and would break if we split
>>> the pattern early.
>>>
>>> I can however only look at the assembler outout for iwmmxt, and make
>>> sure that the stack usage does not get worse.
>>>
>>> Thus the new version of the patch keeps only thumb1, neon and iwmmxt as
>>> it is: around 1570 (thumb1), 2300 (neon) and 2200 (wimmxt) bytes stack
>>> for the test cases, and vfp and soft-float at around 270 bytes stack
>>> usage.
>>>
> It reduces the stack usage from 2300 to near optimal 272 bytes (!).
>
> Note this also splits many ldrd/strd instructions and therefore I will
> post a followup-patch that mitigates this effect by enabling the
> ldrd/strd
> peephole optimization after the necessary reg-testing.
>
>
> Bootstrapped and reg-tested on arm-linux-gnueabihf.

 What do you mean by arm-linux-gnueabihf - when folks say that I
 interpret it as --with-arch=armv7-a --with-float=hard
 --with-fpu=vfpv3-d16 or (--with-fpu=neon).

 If you've really bootstrapped and regtested it on armhf, doesn't this
 patch as it stand have no effect there i.e. no change ?
 arm-linux-gnueabihf usually means to me someone has configured with
 --with-float=hard, so there are no regressions in the hard float ABI
 case,

>>> I know it proves little.  When I say arm-linux-gnueabihf
>>> I do in fact mean --enable-languages=all,ada,go,obj-c++
>>> --with-arch=armv7-a --with-tune=cortex-a9 --with-fpu=vfpv3-d16
>>> --with-float=hard.
>>>
>>> My main interest in the stack usage is of course not because of linux,
>>> but because of eCos where we have very small task stacks and in fact
>>> no fpu support by the O/S at all, so that patch is exactly what we need.
>>>
>>>
>>> Bootstrapped and reg-tested on arm-linux-gnueabihf
>>> Is it OK for trunk?
>
>
> The code is ok.
> AFAICS testing this with --with-fpu=vfpv3-d16 does exercise the new code as
> the splits
> will happen for !TARGET_NEON (it is of course !TARGET_IWMMXT and
> TARGET_IWMMXT2
> is irrelevant here).
>
> So this is ok for trunk.
> Thanks, and sorry again for the delay.
> Kyrill
>

This patch (r251663) causes a regression on armeb-none-linux-gnueabihf
--with-mode arm
--with-cpu cortex-a9
--with-fpu vfpv3-d16-fp16
FAIL:gcc.dg/vect/vect-singleton_1.c (internal compiler error)
FAIL:gcc.dg/vect/vect-singleton_1.c -flto -ffat-lto-objects
(internal compiler error)

the test passes if gcc is configured --with-fpu neon-fp16


Christophe

>>>
>>> Thanks
>>> Bernd.
>
>

Re: [PING**2] [PATCH, ARM] Further improve stack usage on sha512 (PR 77308)

[Kyrill Tkachov]

On 29/04/17 18:45, Bernd Edlinger wrote:

Ping...

I attached a rebased version since there was a merge conflict in
the xordi3 pattern, otherwise the patch is still identical.
It splits adddi3, subdi3, anddi3, iordi3, xordi3 and one_cmpldi2
early when the target has no neon or iwmmxt.


Thanks
Bernd.



On 11/28/16 20:42, Bernd Edlinger wrote:

On 11/25/16 12:30, Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote:

On Sun, Nov 6, 2016 at 2:18 PM, Bernd Edlinger
 wrote:

Hi!

This improves the stack usage on the sha512 test case for the case
without hardware fpu and without iwmmxt by splitting all di-mode
patterns right while expanding which is similar to what the
shift-pattern
does.  It does nothing in the case iwmmxt and fpu=neon or vfp as well as
thumb1.


I would go further and do this in the absence of Neon, the VFP unit
being there doesn't help with DImode operations i.e. we do not have 64
bit integer arithmetic instructions without Neon. The main reason why
we have the DImode patterns split so late is to give a chance for
folks who want to do 64 bit arithmetic in Neon a chance to make this
work as well as support some of the 64 bit Neon intrinsics which IIRC
map down to these instructions. Doing this just for soft-float doesn't
improve the default case only. I don't usually test iwmmxt and I'm not
sure who has the ability to do so, thus keeping this restriction for
iwMMX is fine.



Yes I understand, thanks for pointing that out.

I was not aware what iwmmxt exists at all, but I noticed that most
64bit expansions work completely different, and would break if we split
the pattern early.

I can however only look at the assembler outout for iwmmxt, and make
sure that the stack usage does not get worse.

Thus the new version of the patch keeps only thumb1, neon and iwmmxt as
it is: around 1570 (thumb1), 2300 (neon) and 2200 (wimmxt) bytes stack
for the test cases, and vfp and soft-float at around 270 bytes stack
usage.


It reduces the stack usage from 2300 to near optimal 272 bytes (!).

Note this also splits many ldrd/strd instructions and therefore I will
post a followup-patch that mitigates this effect by enabling the
ldrd/strd
peephole optimization after the necessary reg-testing.


Bootstrapped and reg-tested on arm-linux-gnueabihf.

What do you mean by arm-linux-gnueabihf - when folks say that I
interpret it as --with-arch=armv7-a --with-float=hard
--with-fpu=vfpv3-d16 or (--with-fpu=neon).

If you've really bootstrapped and regtested it on armhf, doesn't this
patch as it stand have no effect there i.e. no change ?
arm-linux-gnueabihf usually means to me someone has configured with
--with-float=hard, so there are no regressions in the hard float ABI
case,


I know it proves little.  When I say arm-linux-gnueabihf
I do in fact mean --enable-languages=all,ada,go,obj-c++
--with-arch=armv7-a --with-tune=cortex-a9 --with-fpu=vfpv3-d16
--with-float=hard.

My main interest in the stack usage is of course not because of linux,
but because of eCos where we have very small task stacks and in fact
no fpu support by the O/S at all, so that patch is exactly what we need.


Bootstrapped and reg-tested on arm-linux-gnueabihf
Is it OK for trunk?


The code is ok.
AFAICS testing this with --with-fpu=vfpv3-d16 does exercise the new code 
as the splits
will happen for !TARGET_NEON (it is of course !TARGET_IWMMXT and 
TARGET_IWMMXT2

is irrelevant here).

So this is ok for trunk.
Thanks, and sorry again for the delay.
Kyrill



Thanks
Bernd.

[PING**6] [PATCH, ARM] Further improve stack usage on sha512 (PR 77308)

[Bernd Edlinger]

Ping...

The latest version of this patch was here:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-04/msg01567.html

Thanks
Bernd.

On 06/14/17 14:34, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
> Ping...
> 
> On 06/01/17 18:01, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
>> Ping...
>>
>> On 05/12/17 18:49, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
>>> Ping...
>>>
>>> On 04/29/17 19:45, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
 Ping...

 I attached a rebased version since there was a merge conflict in
 the xordi3 pattern, otherwise the patch is still identical.
 It splits adddi3, subdi3, anddi3, iordi3, xordi3 and one_cmpldi2
 early when the target has no neon or iwmmxt.


 Thanks
 Bernd.



 On 11/28/16 20:42, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
> On 11/25/16 12:30, Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote:
>> On Sun, Nov 6, 2016 at 2:18 PM, Bernd Edlinger
>>  wrote:
>>> Hi!
>>>
>>> This improves the stack usage on the sha512 test case for the case
>>> without hardware fpu and without iwmmxt by splitting all di-mode
>>> patterns right while expanding which is similar to what the
>>> shift-pattern
>>> does.  It does nothing in the case iwmmxt and fpu=neon or vfp as
>>> well as
>>> thumb1.
>>>
>>
>> I would go further and do this in the absence of Neon, the VFP unit
>> being there doesn't help with DImode operations i.e. we do not 
>> have 64
>> bit integer arithmetic instructions without Neon. The main reason why
>> we have the DImode patterns split so late is to give a chance for
>> folks who want to do 64 bit arithmetic in Neon a chance to make this
>> work as well as support some of the 64 bit Neon intrinsics which IIRC
>> map down to these instructions. Doing this just for soft-float 
>> doesn't
>> improve the default case only. I don't usually test iwmmxt and I'm 
>> not
>> sure who has the ability to do so, thus keeping this restriction for
>> iwMMX is fine.
>>
>>
>
> Yes I understand, thanks for pointing that out.
>
> I was not aware what iwmmxt exists at all, but I noticed that most
> 64bit expansions work completely different, and would break if we 
> split
> the pattern early.
>
> I can however only look at the assembler outout for iwmmxt, and make
> sure that the stack usage does not get worse.
>
> Thus the new version of the patch keeps only thumb1, neon and 
> iwmmxt as
> it is: around 1570 (thumb1), 2300 (neon) and 2200 (wimmxt) bytes stack
> for the test cases, and vfp and soft-float at around 270 bytes stack
> usage.
>
>>> It reduces the stack usage from 2300 to near optimal 272 bytes (!).
>>>
>>> Note this also splits many ldrd/strd instructions and therefore I 
>>> will
>>> post a followup-patch that mitigates this effect by enabling the
>>> ldrd/strd
>>> peephole optimization after the necessary reg-testing.
>>>
>>>
>>> Bootstrapped and reg-tested on arm-linux-gnueabihf.
>>
>> What do you mean by arm-linux-gnueabihf - when folks say that I
>> interpret it as --with-arch=armv7-a --with-float=hard
>> --with-fpu=vfpv3-d16 or (--with-fpu=neon).
>>
>> If you've really bootstrapped and regtested it on armhf, doesn't this
>> patch as it stand have no effect there i.e. no change ?
>> arm-linux-gnueabihf usually means to me someone has configured with
>> --with-float=hard, so there are no regressions in the hard float ABI
>> case,
>>
>
> I know it proves little.  When I say arm-linux-gnueabihf
> I do in fact mean --enable-languages=all,ada,go,obj-c++
> --with-arch=armv7-a --with-tune=cortex-a9 --with-fpu=vfpv3-d16
> --with-float=hard.
>
> My main interest in the stack usage is of course not because of linux,
> but because of eCos where we have very small task stacks and in fact
> no fpu support by the O/S at all, so that patch is exactly what we 
> need.
>
>
> Bootstrapped and reg-tested on arm-linux-gnueabihf
> Is it OK for trunk?
>
>
> Thanks
> Bernd.

[PING**5] [PATCH, ARM] Further improve stack usage on sha512 (PR 77308)

[Bernd Edlinger]

Ping...

On 06/01/17 18:01, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
> Ping...
> 
> On 05/12/17 18:49, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
>> Ping...
>>
>> On 04/29/17 19:45, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
>>> Ping...
>>>
>>> I attached a rebased version since there was a merge conflict in
>>> the xordi3 pattern, otherwise the patch is still identical.
>>> It splits adddi3, subdi3, anddi3, iordi3, xordi3 and one_cmpldi2
>>> early when the target has no neon or iwmmxt.
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>> Bernd.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 11/28/16 20:42, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
 On 11/25/16 12:30, Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 6, 2016 at 2:18 PM, Bernd Edlinger
>  wrote:
>> Hi!
>>
>> This improves the stack usage on the sha512 test case for the case
>> without hardware fpu and without iwmmxt by splitting all di-mode
>> patterns right while expanding which is similar to what the
>> shift-pattern
>> does.  It does nothing in the case iwmmxt and fpu=neon or vfp as
>> well as
>> thumb1.
>>
>
> I would go further and do this in the absence of Neon, the VFP unit
> being there doesn't help with DImode operations i.e. we do not have 64
> bit integer arithmetic instructions without Neon. The main reason why
> we have the DImode patterns split so late is to give a chance for
> folks who want to do 64 bit arithmetic in Neon a chance to make this
> work as well as support some of the 64 bit Neon intrinsics which IIRC
> map down to these instructions. Doing this just for soft-float doesn't
> improve the default case only. I don't usually test iwmmxt and I'm not
> sure who has the ability to do so, thus keeping this restriction for
> iwMMX is fine.
>
>

 Yes I understand, thanks for pointing that out.

 I was not aware what iwmmxt exists at all, but I noticed that most
 64bit expansions work completely different, and would break if we split
 the pattern early.

 I can however only look at the assembler outout for iwmmxt, and make
 sure that the stack usage does not get worse.

 Thus the new version of the patch keeps only thumb1, neon and iwmmxt as
 it is: around 1570 (thumb1), 2300 (neon) and 2200 (wimmxt) bytes stack
 for the test cases, and vfp and soft-float at around 270 bytes stack
 usage.

>> It reduces the stack usage from 2300 to near optimal 272 bytes (!).
>>
>> Note this also splits many ldrd/strd instructions and therefore I 
>> will
>> post a followup-patch that mitigates this effect by enabling the
>> ldrd/strd
>> peephole optimization after the necessary reg-testing.
>>
>>
>> Bootstrapped and reg-tested on arm-linux-gnueabihf.
>
> What do you mean by arm-linux-gnueabihf - when folks say that I
> interpret it as --with-arch=armv7-a --with-float=hard
> --with-fpu=vfpv3-d16 or (--with-fpu=neon).
>
> If you've really bootstrapped and regtested it on armhf, doesn't this
> patch as it stand have no effect there i.e. no change ?
> arm-linux-gnueabihf usually means to me someone has configured with
> --with-float=hard, so there are no regressions in the hard float ABI
> case,
>

 I know it proves little.  When I say arm-linux-gnueabihf
 I do in fact mean --enable-languages=all,ada,go,obj-c++
 --with-arch=armv7-a --with-tune=cortex-a9 --with-fpu=vfpv3-d16
 --with-float=hard.

 My main interest in the stack usage is of course not because of linux,
 but because of eCos where we have very small task stacks and in fact
 no fpu support by the O/S at all, so that patch is exactly what we 
 need.


 Bootstrapped and reg-tested on arm-linux-gnueabihf
 Is it OK for trunk?


 Thanks
 Bernd.

[PING**4] [PATCH, ARM] Further improve stack usage on sha512 (PR 77308)

[Bernd Edlinger]

Ping...

On 05/12/17 18:49, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
> Ping...
> 
> On 04/29/17 19:45, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
>> Ping...
>>
>> I attached a rebased version since there was a merge conflict in
>> the xordi3 pattern, otherwise the patch is still identical.
>> It splits adddi3, subdi3, anddi3, iordi3, xordi3 and one_cmpldi2
>> early when the target has no neon or iwmmxt.
>>
>>
>> Thanks
>> Bernd.
>>
>>
>>
>> On 11/28/16 20:42, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
>>> On 11/25/16 12:30, Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote:
 On Sun, Nov 6, 2016 at 2:18 PM, Bernd Edlinger
  wrote:
> Hi!
>
> This improves the stack usage on the sha512 test case for the case
> without hardware fpu and without iwmmxt by splitting all di-mode
> patterns right while expanding which is similar to what the
> shift-pattern
> does.  It does nothing in the case iwmmxt and fpu=neon or vfp as
> well as
> thumb1.
>

 I would go further and do this in the absence of Neon, the VFP unit
 being there doesn't help with DImode operations i.e. we do not have 64
 bit integer arithmetic instructions without Neon. The main reason why
 we have the DImode patterns split so late is to give a chance for
 folks who want to do 64 bit arithmetic in Neon a chance to make this
 work as well as support some of the 64 bit Neon intrinsics which IIRC
 map down to these instructions. Doing this just for soft-float doesn't
 improve the default case only. I don't usually test iwmmxt and I'm not
 sure who has the ability to do so, thus keeping this restriction for
 iwMMX is fine.


>>>
>>> Yes I understand, thanks for pointing that out.
>>>
>>> I was not aware what iwmmxt exists at all, but I noticed that most
>>> 64bit expansions work completely different, and would break if we split
>>> the pattern early.
>>>
>>> I can however only look at the assembler outout for iwmmxt, and make
>>> sure that the stack usage does not get worse.
>>>
>>> Thus the new version of the patch keeps only thumb1, neon and iwmmxt as
>>> it is: around 1570 (thumb1), 2300 (neon) and 2200 (wimmxt) bytes stack
>>> for the test cases, and vfp and soft-float at around 270 bytes stack
>>> usage.
>>>
> It reduces the stack usage from 2300 to near optimal 272 bytes (!).
>
> Note this also splits many ldrd/strd instructions and therefore I will
> post a followup-patch that mitigates this effect by enabling the
> ldrd/strd
> peephole optimization after the necessary reg-testing.
>
>
> Bootstrapped and reg-tested on arm-linux-gnueabihf.

 What do you mean by arm-linux-gnueabihf - when folks say that I
 interpret it as --with-arch=armv7-a --with-float=hard
 --with-fpu=vfpv3-d16 or (--with-fpu=neon).

 If you've really bootstrapped and regtested it on armhf, doesn't this
 patch as it stand have no effect there i.e. no change ?
 arm-linux-gnueabihf usually means to me someone has configured with
 --with-float=hard, so there are no regressions in the hard float ABI
 case,

>>>
>>> I know it proves little.  When I say arm-linux-gnueabihf
>>> I do in fact mean --enable-languages=all,ada,go,obj-c++
>>> --with-arch=armv7-a --with-tune=cortex-a9 --with-fpu=vfpv3-d16
>>> --with-float=hard.
>>>
>>> My main interest in the stack usage is of course not because of linux,
>>> but because of eCos where we have very small task stacks and in fact
>>> no fpu support by the O/S at all, so that patch is exactly what we need.
>>>
>>>
>>> Bootstrapped and reg-tested on arm-linux-gnueabihf
>>> Is it OK for trunk?
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>> Bernd.

[PING**3] [PATCH, ARM] Further improve stack usage on sha512 (PR 77308)

[Bernd Edlinger]

Ping...

On 04/29/17 19:45, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
> Ping...
>
> I attached a rebased version since there was a merge conflict in
> the xordi3 pattern, otherwise the patch is still identical.
> It splits adddi3, subdi3, anddi3, iordi3, xordi3 and one_cmpldi2
> early when the target has no neon or iwmmxt.
>
>
> Thanks
> Bernd.
>
>
>
> On 11/28/16 20:42, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
>> On 11/25/16 12:30, Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote:
>>> On Sun, Nov 6, 2016 at 2:18 PM, Bernd Edlinger
>>>  wrote:
 Hi!

 This improves the stack usage on the sha512 test case for the case
 without hardware fpu and without iwmmxt by splitting all di-mode
 patterns right while expanding which is similar to what the
 shift-pattern
 does.  It does nothing in the case iwmmxt and fpu=neon or vfp as
 well as
 thumb1.

>>>
>>> I would go further and do this in the absence of Neon, the VFP unit
>>> being there doesn't help with DImode operations i.e. we do not have 64
>>> bit integer arithmetic instructions without Neon. The main reason why
>>> we have the DImode patterns split so late is to give a chance for
>>> folks who want to do 64 bit arithmetic in Neon a chance to make this
>>> work as well as support some of the 64 bit Neon intrinsics which IIRC
>>> map down to these instructions. Doing this just for soft-float doesn't
>>> improve the default case only. I don't usually test iwmmxt and I'm not
>>> sure who has the ability to do so, thus keeping this restriction for
>>> iwMMX is fine.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Yes I understand, thanks for pointing that out.
>>
>> I was not aware what iwmmxt exists at all, but I noticed that most
>> 64bit expansions work completely different, and would break if we split
>> the pattern early.
>>
>> I can however only look at the assembler outout for iwmmxt, and make
>> sure that the stack usage does not get worse.
>>
>> Thus the new version of the patch keeps only thumb1, neon and iwmmxt as
>> it is: around 1570 (thumb1), 2300 (neon) and 2200 (wimmxt) bytes stack
>> for the test cases, and vfp and soft-float at around 270 bytes stack
>> usage.
>>
 It reduces the stack usage from 2300 to near optimal 272 bytes (!).

 Note this also splits many ldrd/strd instructions and therefore I will
 post a followup-patch that mitigates this effect by enabling the
 ldrd/strd
 peephole optimization after the necessary reg-testing.


 Bootstrapped and reg-tested on arm-linux-gnueabihf.
>>>
>>> What do you mean by arm-linux-gnueabihf - when folks say that I
>>> interpret it as --with-arch=armv7-a --with-float=hard
>>> --with-fpu=vfpv3-d16 or (--with-fpu=neon).
>>>
>>> If you've really bootstrapped and regtested it on armhf, doesn't this
>>> patch as it stand have no effect there i.e. no change ?
>>> arm-linux-gnueabihf usually means to me someone has configured with
>>> --with-float=hard, so there are no regressions in the hard float ABI
>>> case,
>>>
>>
>> I know it proves little.  When I say arm-linux-gnueabihf
>> I do in fact mean --enable-languages=all,ada,go,obj-c++
>> --with-arch=armv7-a --with-tune=cortex-a9 --with-fpu=vfpv3-d16
>> --with-float=hard.
>>
>> My main interest in the stack usage is of course not because of linux,
>> but because of eCos where we have very small task stacks and in fact
>> no fpu support by the O/S at all, so that patch is exactly what we need.
>>
>>
>> Bootstrapped and reg-tested on arm-linux-gnueabihf
>> Is it OK for trunk?
>>
>>
>> Thanks
>> Bernd.

[PING**2] [PATCH, ARM] Further improve stack usage on sha512 (PR 77308)

[Bernd Edlinger]

Ping...

I attached a rebased version since there was a merge conflict in
the xordi3 pattern, otherwise the patch is still identical.
It splits adddi3, subdi3, anddi3, iordi3, xordi3 and one_cmpldi2
early when the target has no neon or iwmmxt.


Thanks
Bernd.



On 11/28/16 20:42, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
> On 11/25/16 12:30, Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote:
>> On Sun, Nov 6, 2016 at 2:18 PM, Bernd Edlinger
>>  wrote:
>>> Hi!
>>>
>>> This improves the stack usage on the sha512 test case for the case
>>> without hardware fpu and without iwmmxt by splitting all di-mode
>>> patterns right while expanding which is similar to what the
>>> shift-pattern
>>> does.  It does nothing in the case iwmmxt and fpu=neon or vfp as well as
>>> thumb1.
>>>
>>
>> I would go further and do this in the absence of Neon, the VFP unit
>> being there doesn't help with DImode operations i.e. we do not have 64
>> bit integer arithmetic instructions without Neon. The main reason why
>> we have the DImode patterns split so late is to give a chance for
>> folks who want to do 64 bit arithmetic in Neon a chance to make this
>> work as well as support some of the 64 bit Neon intrinsics which IIRC
>> map down to these instructions. Doing this just for soft-float doesn't
>> improve the default case only. I don't usually test iwmmxt and I'm not
>> sure who has the ability to do so, thus keeping this restriction for
>> iwMMX is fine.
>>
>>
>
> Yes I understand, thanks for pointing that out.
>
> I was not aware what iwmmxt exists at all, but I noticed that most
> 64bit expansions work completely different, and would break if we split
> the pattern early.
>
> I can however only look at the assembler outout for iwmmxt, and make
> sure that the stack usage does not get worse.
>
> Thus the new version of the patch keeps only thumb1, neon and iwmmxt as
> it is: around 1570 (thumb1), 2300 (neon) and 2200 (wimmxt) bytes stack
> for the test cases, and vfp and soft-float at around 270 bytes stack
> usage.
>
>>> It reduces the stack usage from 2300 to near optimal 272 bytes (!).
>>>
>>> Note this also splits many ldrd/strd instructions and therefore I will
>>> post a followup-patch that mitigates this effect by enabling the
>>> ldrd/strd
>>> peephole optimization after the necessary reg-testing.
>>>
>>>
>>> Bootstrapped and reg-tested on arm-linux-gnueabihf.
>>
>> What do you mean by arm-linux-gnueabihf - when folks say that I
>> interpret it as --with-arch=armv7-a --with-float=hard
>> --with-fpu=vfpv3-d16 or (--with-fpu=neon).
>>
>> If you've really bootstrapped and regtested it on armhf, doesn't this
>> patch as it stand have no effect there i.e. no change ?
>> arm-linux-gnueabihf usually means to me someone has configured with
>> --with-float=hard, so there are no regressions in the hard float ABI
>> case,
>>
>
> I know it proves little.  When I say arm-linux-gnueabihf
> I do in fact mean --enable-languages=all,ada,go,obj-c++
> --with-arch=armv7-a --with-tune=cortex-a9 --with-fpu=vfpv3-d16
> --with-float=hard.
>
> My main interest in the stack usage is of course not because of linux,
> but because of eCos where we have very small task stacks and in fact
> no fpu support by the O/S at all, so that patch is exactly what we need.
>
>
> Bootstrapped and reg-tested on arm-linux-gnueabihf
> Is it OK for trunk?
>
>
> Thanks
> Bernd.
2017-04-26  Bernd Edlinger  

	PR target/77308
	* config/arm/arm.md (*arm_adddi3, *arm_subdi3): Split early except for
	TARGET_NEON and TARGET_IWMMXT.
	(anddi3, iordi3, xordi3, one_cmpldi2): Split while expanding except for
	TARGET_NEON and TARGET_IWMMXT.
	(*one_cmpldi2_insn): Moved the body of one_cmpldi2 here.

testsuite:
2017-04-26  Bernd Edlinger  

	PR target/77308
	* gcc.target/arm/pr77308-1.c: New test.

Index: gcc/config/arm/arm.md
===
--- gcc/config/arm/arm.md	(revision 247222)
+++ gcc/config/arm/arm.md	(working copy)
@@ -467,7 +467,7 @@
(clobber (reg:CC CC_REGNUM))]
   "TARGET_32BIT && !TARGET_NEON"
   "#"
-  "TARGET_32BIT && reload_completed
+  "TARGET_32BIT && ((!TARGET_NEON && !TARGET_IWMMXT) || reload_completed)
&& ! (TARGET_NEON && IS_VFP_REGNUM (REGNO (operands[0])))"
   [(parallel [(set (reg:CC_C CC_REGNUM)
 		   (compare:CC_C (plus:SI (match_dup 1) (match_dup 2))
@@ -1273,7 +1273,7 @@
(clobber (reg:CC CC_REGNUM))]
   "TARGET_32BIT && !TARGET_NEON"
   "#"  ; "subs\\t%Q0, %Q1, %Q2\;sbc\\t%R0, %R1, %R2"
-  "&& reload_completed"
+  "&& (!TARGET_IWMMXT || reload_completed)"
   [(parallel [(set (reg:CC CC_REGNUM)
 		   (compare:CC (match_dup 1) (match_dup 2)))
 	  (set (match_dup 0) (minus:SI (match_dup 1) (match_dup 2)))])
@@ -2259,7 +2259,24 @@
 	(and:DI (match_operand:DI 1 "s_register_operand" "")
 		(match_operand:DI 2 "neon_inv_logic_op2" "")))]
   "TARGET_32BIT"
-  ""
+  "
+  if (!TARGET_NEON && !TARGET_IWMMXT)
+{
+  rtx low  = simplify_gen_binary 

Re: [PATCH, ARM] Further improve stack usage on sha512 (PR 77308)

[Bernd Edlinger]

On 01/11/17 17:55, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote:
>
> Sorry for the delay getting around to this.
>
> I just tried this patch and found that it doesn't apply.  Furthermore,
> there's not enough context in the rejected hunks for me to be certain
> which patterns you're trying to fix up.
>
> Could you do an update please?
>

Sure, I just gave up pinging, as we are rather late in stage 3
already...

So the current status is this:

I have the invalid code issue here; it is independent of the
optimization issues:

[PATCH, ARM] correctly encode the CC reg data flow
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-12/msg01562.html

Then I have the patch for splitting the most important
64bit patterns here:

[PATCH, ARM] Further improve stack usage on sha512 (PR 77308)
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-11/msg02796.html

and the follow-up patch that triggered the invalid code here:

[PATCH, ARM] Further improve stack usage in sha512, part 2 (PR 77308)
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-12/msg01563.html

In the last part I had initially this hunk,
-operands[2] = gen_lowpart (SImode, operands[2]);
+if (can_create_pseudo_p ())
+  operands[2] = gen_reg_rtx (SImode);
+else
+  operands[2] = gen_lowpart (SImode, operands[2]);

As Wilco pointed out that the else part is superfluous,
I already removed the gen_lowpart stuff locally.

All three parts should apply to trunk, only the last part
depends on both earlier patches.


Thanks
Bernd.

Re: [PATCH, ARM] Further improve stack usage on sha512 (PR 77308)

[Richard Earnshaw (lists)]

On 08/12/16 19:50, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
> Hi Wilco,
> 
> On 11/30/16 18:01, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
>> I attached the completely untested follow-up patch now, but I would
>> like to post that one again for review, after I applied my current
>> patch, which is still waiting for final review (please feel pinged!).
>>
>>
>> This is really exciting...
>>
>>
> 
> 
> when testing the follow-up patch I discovered a single regression
> in gcc.dg/fixed-point/convert-sat.c that was caused by a mis-compilation
> of the libgcc function __gnu_satfractdasq.
> 
> I think it triggerd a latent bug in the carryin_compare patterns.
> 
> everything is as expected until reload.  First what is left over
> of a split cmpdi_insn followed by a former cmpdi_unsigned, if the
> branch is not taken.
> 
> (insn 109 10 110 2 (set (reg:CC 100 cc)
>  (compare:CC (reg:SI 0 r0 [orig:124 _10 ] [124])
>  (const_int 0 [0]))) 
> "../../../gcc-trunk/libgcc/fixed-bit.c":785 196 {*arm_cmpsi_insn}
>   (nil))
> (insn 110 109 13 2 (parallel [
>  (set (reg:CC 100 cc)
>  (compare:CC (reg:SI 1 r1 [orig:125 _10+4 ] [125])
>  (const_int -1 [0x])))
>  (set (reg:SI 3 r3 [123])
>  (minus:SI (plus:SI (reg:SI 1 r1 [orig:125 _10+4 ] [125])
>  (const_int -1 [0x]))
>  (ltu:SI (reg:CC_C 100 cc)
>  (const_int 0 [0]
>  ]) "../../../gcc-trunk/libgcc/fixed-bit.c":785 32 
> {*subsi3_carryin_compare_const}
>   (nil))
> (jump_insn 13 110 31 2 (set (pc)
>  (if_then_else (ge (reg:CC_NCV 100 cc)
>  (const_int 0 [0]))
>  (label_ref:SI 102)
>  (pc))) "../../../gcc-trunk/libgcc/fixed-bit.c":785 204 
> {arm_cond_branch}
>   (int_list:REG_BR_PROB 6400 (nil))
> 
> (note 31 13 97 3 [bb 3] NOTE_INSN_BASIC_BLOCK)
> (note 97 31 114 3 NOTE_INSN_DELETED)
> (insn 114 97 113 3 (set (reg:SI 2 r2 [orig:127+4 ] [127])
>  (const_int -1 [0x])) 
> "../../../gcc-trunk/libgcc/fixed-bit.c":831 630 {*arm_movsi_vfp}
>   (expr_list:REG_EQUIV (const_int -1 [0x])
>  (nil)))
> (insn 113 114 107 3 (set (reg:SI 3 r3 [126])
>  (const_int 2147483647 [0x7fff])) 
> "../../../gcc-trunk/libgcc/fixed-bit.c":831 630 {*arm_movsi_vfp}
>   (expr_list:REG_EQUIV (const_int 2147483647 [0x7fff])
>  (nil)))
> (insn 107 113 108 3 (set (reg:CC 100 cc)
>  (compare:CC (reg:SI 1 r1 [orig:125 _10+4 ] [125])
>  (reg:SI 2 r2 [orig:127+4 ] [127]))) 
> "../../../gcc-trunk/libgcc/fixed-bit.c":831 196 {*arm_cmpsi_insn}
>   (nil))
> 
> 
> Note that the CC register is not really set as implied by insn 110,
> because the C flag depends on the comparison of r1, 0x and the
> carry flag from insn 109.  Therefore in the postreload pass the
> insn 107 appears to be unnecessary, as if should compute
> exactly the same CC flag, as insn 110, i.e. not dependent on
> previous CC flag.  I think all carryin_compare patterns are
> wrong because they do not describe the true value of the CC reg.
> 
> I think the CC reg is actually dependent on left, right and CC-in
> value, as in the new version of the patch it must be a computation
> in DI mode without overflow, as in my new version of the patch.
> 
> I attached an update of the followup patch which is not yet adjusted
> on your pending negdi patch.  Reg-testing is no yet done, but the
> mis-compilation on libgcc is fixed at least.
> 
> What do you think?

Sorry for the delay getting around to this.

I just tried this patch and found that it doesn't apply.  Furthermore,
there's not enough context in the rejected hunks for me to be certain
which patterns you're trying to fix up.

Could you do an update please?

R.

> 
> 
> Thanks
> Bernd.
> 
> 
> patch-pr77308-5.diff
> 
> 
> 2016-12-08  Bernd Edlinger  
> 
>   PR target/77308
>   * config/arm/arm.md (subdi3_compare1, subsi3_carryin_compare,
>   subsi3_carryin_compare_const, negdi2_compare): Fix the CC reg dataflow.
>   (*arm_negdi2, *arm_cmpdi_unsigned): Split early except for
> TARGET_NEON and TARGET_IWMMXT.
>   (*arm_cmpdi_insn): Split early except for
>   TARGET_NEON and TARGET_IWMMXT.  Fix the CC reg dataflow.
>   * config/arm/thumb2.md (*thumb2_negdi2): Split early except for
>   TARGET_NEON and TARGET_IWMMXT.
> 
> testsuite:
> 2016-12-08  Bernd Edlinger  
> 
>   PR target/77308
>   * gcc.target/arm/pr77308-2.c: New test.
> 
> --- gcc/config/arm/arm.md.orig2016-12-08 16:01:43.290595127 +0100
> +++ gcc/config/arm/arm.md 2016-12-08 19:04:22.251065848 +0100
> @@ -1086,8 +1086,8 @@
>  })
>  
>  (define_insn_and_split "subdi3_compare1"
> -  [(set (reg:CC CC_REGNUM)
> - (compare:CC
> +  [(set (reg:CC_NCV CC_REGNUM)
> + (compare:CC_NCV
> 

[PING**4] [PATCH, ARM] Further improve stack usage on sha512 (PR 77308)

[Bernd Edlinger]

Ping...

On 12/27/16 15:12, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
> Ping...
>
> On 12/19/16 06:49, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
>> Ping...
>>
>> On 12/12/16 06:59, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
>>> Ping...
>>>
>>> On 12/05/16 14:41, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
 Hi,

 this was the latest version of my patch:
 https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-11/msg02796.html


 Thanks
 Bernd.

[PING**3] [PATCH, ARM] Further improve stack usage on sha512 (PR 77308)

[Bernd Edlinger]

Ping...

On 12/19/16 06:49, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
> Ping...
>
> On 12/12/16 06:59, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
>> Ping...
>>
>> On 12/05/16 14:41, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> this was the latest version of my patch:
>>> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-11/msg02796.html
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>> Bernd.

Re: [PING**2] [PATCH, ARM] Further improve stack usage on sha512 (PR 77308)

[Bernd Edlinger]

Ping...

On 12/12/16 06:59, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
> Ping...
>
> On 12/05/16 14:41, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> this was the latest version of my patch:
>> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-11/msg02796.html
>>
>>
>> Thanks
>> Bernd.

[PING**2] [PATCH, ARM] Further improve stack usage on sha512 (PR 77308)

[Bernd Edlinger]

Ping...

On 12/05/16 14:41, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
> Hi,
>
> this was the latest version of my patch:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-11/msg02796.html
>
>
> Thanks
> Bernd.

Re: [PATCH, ARM] Further improve stack usage on sha512 (PR 77308)

[Bernd Edlinger]

Hi Wilco,

On 11/30/16 18:01, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
> I attached the completely untested follow-up patch now, but I would
> like to post that one again for review, after I applied my current
> patch, which is still waiting for final review (please feel pinged!).
>
>
> This is really exciting...
>
>


when testing the follow-up patch I discovered a single regression
in gcc.dg/fixed-point/convert-sat.c that was caused by a mis-compilation
of the libgcc function __gnu_satfractdasq.

I think it triggerd a latent bug in the carryin_compare patterns.

everything is as expected until reload.  First what is left over
of a split cmpdi_insn followed by a former cmpdi_unsigned, if the
branch is not taken.

(insn 109 10 110 2 (set (reg:CC 100 cc)
 (compare:CC (reg:SI 0 r0 [orig:124 _10 ] [124])
 (const_int 0 [0]))) 
"../../../gcc-trunk/libgcc/fixed-bit.c":785 196 {*arm_cmpsi_insn}
  (nil))
(insn 110 109 13 2 (parallel [
 (set (reg:CC 100 cc)
 (compare:CC (reg:SI 1 r1 [orig:125 _10+4 ] [125])
 (const_int -1 [0x])))
 (set (reg:SI 3 r3 [123])
 (minus:SI (plus:SI (reg:SI 1 r1 [orig:125 _10+4 ] [125])
 (const_int -1 [0x]))
 (ltu:SI (reg:CC_C 100 cc)
 (const_int 0 [0]
 ]) "../../../gcc-trunk/libgcc/fixed-bit.c":785 32 
{*subsi3_carryin_compare_const}
  (nil))
(jump_insn 13 110 31 2 (set (pc)
 (if_then_else (ge (reg:CC_NCV 100 cc)
 (const_int 0 [0]))
 (label_ref:SI 102)
 (pc))) "../../../gcc-trunk/libgcc/fixed-bit.c":785 204 
{arm_cond_branch}
  (int_list:REG_BR_PROB 6400 (nil))

(note 31 13 97 3 [bb 3] NOTE_INSN_BASIC_BLOCK)
(note 97 31 114 3 NOTE_INSN_DELETED)
(insn 114 97 113 3 (set (reg:SI 2 r2 [orig:127+4 ] [127])
 (const_int -1 [0x])) 
"../../../gcc-trunk/libgcc/fixed-bit.c":831 630 {*arm_movsi_vfp}
  (expr_list:REG_EQUIV (const_int -1 [0x])
 (nil)))
(insn 113 114 107 3 (set (reg:SI 3 r3 [126])
 (const_int 2147483647 [0x7fff])) 
"../../../gcc-trunk/libgcc/fixed-bit.c":831 630 {*arm_movsi_vfp}
  (expr_list:REG_EQUIV (const_int 2147483647 [0x7fff])
 (nil)))
(insn 107 113 108 3 (set (reg:CC 100 cc)
 (compare:CC (reg:SI 1 r1 [orig:125 _10+4 ] [125])
 (reg:SI 2 r2 [orig:127+4 ] [127]))) 
"../../../gcc-trunk/libgcc/fixed-bit.c":831 196 {*arm_cmpsi_insn}
  (nil))


Note that the CC register is not really set as implied by insn 110,
because the C flag depends on the comparison of r1, 0x and the
carry flag from insn 109.  Therefore in the postreload pass the
insn 107 appears to be unnecessary, as if should compute
exactly the same CC flag, as insn 110, i.e. not dependent on
previous CC flag.  I think all carryin_compare patterns are
wrong because they do not describe the true value of the CC reg.

I think the CC reg is actually dependent on left, right and CC-in
value, as in the new version of the patch it must be a computation
in DI mode without overflow, as in my new version of the patch.

I attached an update of the followup patch which is not yet adjusted
on your pending negdi patch.  Reg-testing is no yet done, but the
mis-compilation on libgcc is fixed at least.

What do you think?


Thanks
Bernd.
2016-12-08  Bernd Edlinger  

	PR target/77308
	* config/arm/arm.md (subdi3_compare1, subsi3_carryin_compare,
	subsi3_carryin_compare_const, negdi2_compare): Fix the CC reg dataflow.
	(*arm_negdi2, *arm_cmpdi_unsigned): Split early except for
TARGET_NEON and TARGET_IWMMXT.
	(*arm_cmpdi_insn): Split early except for
	TARGET_NEON and TARGET_IWMMXT.  Fix the CC reg dataflow.
	* config/arm/thumb2.md (*thumb2_negdi2): Split early except for
	TARGET_NEON and TARGET_IWMMXT.

testsuite:
2016-12-08  Bernd Edlinger  

	PR target/77308
	* gcc.target/arm/pr77308-2.c: New test.

--- gcc/config/arm/arm.md.orig	2016-12-08 16:01:43.290595127 +0100
+++ gcc/config/arm/arm.md	2016-12-08 19:04:22.251065848 +0100
@@ -1086,8 +1086,8 @@
 })
 
 (define_insn_and_split "subdi3_compare1"
-  [(set (reg:CC CC_REGNUM)
-	(compare:CC
+  [(set (reg:CC_NCV CC_REGNUM)
+	(compare:CC_NCV
 	  (match_operand:DI 1 "register_operand" "r")
 	  (match_operand:DI 2 "register_operand" "r")))
(set (match_operand:DI 0 "register_operand" "=")
@@ -1098,10 +1098,15 @@
   [(parallel [(set (reg:CC CC_REGNUM)
 		   (compare:CC (match_dup 1) (match_dup 2)))
 	  (set (match_dup 0) (minus:SI (match_dup 1) (match_dup 2)))])
-   (parallel [(set (reg:CC CC_REGNUM)
-		   (compare:CC (match_dup 4) (match_dup 5)))
-	 (set (match_dup 3) (minus:SI (minus:SI (match_dup 4) (match_dup 5))
-			   (ltu:SI (reg:CC_C CC_REGNUM) (const_int 0])]
+   (parallel [(set (reg:CC_C CC_REGNUM)
+		   (compare:CC_C
+		 (zero_extend:DI (match_dup 4))
+		

[PING] [PATCH, ARM] Further improve stack usage on sha512 (PR 77308)

[Bernd Edlinger]

Hi,

this was the latest version of my patch:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-11/msg02796.html


Thanks
Bernd.

Re: [PATCH, ARM] Further improve stack usage on sha512 (PR 77308)

[Bernd Edlinger]

On 11/30/16 13:01, Wilco Dijkstra wrote:
> Bernd Edlinger wrote:
>> On 11/29/16 16:06, Wilco Dijkstra wrote:
>>> Bernd Edlinger wrote:
>>>
>>> -  "TARGET_32BIT && reload_completed
>>> +  "TARGET_32BIT && ((!TARGET_NEON && !TARGET_IWMMXT) || reload_completed)
>>>  && ! (TARGET_NEON && IS_VFP_REGNUM (REGNO (operands[0])))"
>>>
>>> This is equivalent to "&& (!TARGET_IWMMXT || reload_completed)" since we're
>>> already excluding NEON.
>>
>> Aehm, no.  This would split the addi_neon insn before it is clear
>> if the reload pass will assign a VFP register.
>
> Hmm that's strange... This instruction shouldn't be used to also split some 
> random
> Neon pattern - for example arm_subdi3 doesn't do the same. To understand and
> reason about any of these complex patterns they should all work in the same 
> way...
>
I was a bit surprised as well, when I saw that happen.
But subdi3 is different:
   "TARGET_32BIT && !TARGET_NEON"
   "#"  ; "subs\\t%Q0, %Q1, %Q2\;sbc\\t%R0, %R1, %R2"
   "&& reload_completed"

so this never splits anything if TARGET_NEON.
but adddi3 can not expand if TARGET_NEON but it's pattern simply
looks exactly like the addi3_neon:

(define_insn_and_split "*arm_adddi3"
   [(set (match_operand:DI  0 "s_register_operand" 
"=")
 (plus:DI (match_operand:DI 1 "s_register_operand" "%0, 0, r, 0, r")
  (match_operand:DI 2 "arm_adddi_operand"  "r,  0, r, 
Dd, Dd")))
(clobber (reg:CC CC_REGNUM))]
   "TARGET_32BIT && !TARGET_NEON"
   "#"
   "TARGET_32BIT && reload_completed
&& ! (TARGET_NEON && IS_VFP_REGNUM (REGNO (operands[0])))"

(define_insn "adddi3_neon"
   [(set (match_operand:DI 0 "s_register_operand" 
"=w,?,?,?w,?,?,?")
 (plus:DI (match_operand:DI 1 "s_register_operand" "%w,0,0,w,r,0,r")
  (match_operand:DI 2 "arm_adddi_operand" 
"w,r,0,w,r,Dd,Dd")))
(clobber (reg:CC CC_REGNUM))]
   "TARGET_NEON"
{
   switch (which_alternative)
 {
 case 0: /* fall through */
 case 3: return "vadd.i64\t%P0, %P1, %P2";
 case 1: return "#";
 case 2: return "#";
 case 4: return "#";
 case 5: return "#";
 case 6: return "#";
 default: gcc_unreachable ();
 }

Even the return "#" explicitly invokes the former pattern.
So I think the author knew that, and did it on purpose.


>> But when I make *arm_cmpdi_insn split early, it ICEs:
>
> (insn 4870 4869 1636 87 (set (scratch:SI)
>  (minus:SI (minus:SI (subreg:SI (reg:DI 2261) 4)
>  (subreg:SI (reg:DI 473 [ X$14 ]) 4))
>  (ltu:SI (reg:CC_C 100 cc)
>  (const_int 0 [0] "pr77308-2.c":140 -1
>   (nil))
>
> That's easy, we don't have a sbcs , r1, r2 pattern. A quick 
> workaround is
> to create a temporary for operand[2] (if before reload) so it will match the 
> standard
> sbcs pattern, and then the split works fine.
>
>> So it is certainly possible, but not really simple to improve the
>> stack size even further.  But I would prefer to do that in a
>> separate patch.
>
> Yes separate patches would be fine. However there is a lot of scope to 
> improve this
> further. For example after your patch shifts and logical operations are 
> expanded in
> expand, add/sub are in split1 after combine runs and everything else is split 
> after
> reload. It doesn't make sense to split different operations at different 
> times - it means
> you're still going to get the bad DImode subregs and miss lots of optimization
> opportunities due to the mix of partly split and partly not-yet-split 
> operations.
>

Yes.  I did the add/sub differently because it was more easy this way,
and it was simply sufficient to make the existing test cases happy.

Also, the biggest benefit was IIRC from the very early splitting
of the anddi/iordi/xordi patterns, because they have completely
separate data flow in low and high parts.  And that is not
the case for the arihmetic patterns, but nevertheless they
can still be optimized, preferably, when a new test case
is found, that can demonstrate an improvement.

I am not sure why the cmpdi pattern have an influence at all,
because from the data flow you need all 64 bits of both sides.
Nevertheless it is a fact: With the modified test case I
get 264 bytes frame size, and that was 1920 before.

I attached the completely untested follow-up patch now, but I would
like to post that one again for review, after I applied my current
patch, which is still waiting for final review (please feel pinged!).


This is really exciting...


Thanks
Bernd.
--- gcc/config/arm/arm.md.orig	2016-11-27 09:22:41.794790123 +0100
+++ gcc/config/arm/arm.md	2016-11-30 16:40:30.140532737 +0100
@@ -4738,7 +4738,7 @@
(clobber (reg:CC CC_REGNUM))]
   "TARGET_ARM"
   "#"   ; "rsbs\\t%Q0, %Q1, #0\;rsc\\t%R0, %R1, #0"
-  "&& reload_completed"
+  "&& ((!TARGET_NEON && !TARGET_IWMMXT) || reload_completed)"
   [(parallel [(set (reg:CC CC_REGNUM)
 		   (compare:CC (const_int 0) (match_dup 1)))
 	  (set (match_dup 0) (minus:SI 

Re: [PATCH, ARM] Further improve stack usage on sha512 (PR 77308)

[Wilco Dijkstra]

Bernd Edlinger wrote:
> On 11/29/16 16:06, Wilco Dijkstra wrote:
> > Bernd Edlinger wrote:
> >
> > -  "TARGET_32BIT && reload_completed
> > +  "TARGET_32BIT && ((!TARGET_NEON && !TARGET_IWMMXT) || reload_completed)
> > && ! (TARGET_NEON && IS_VFP_REGNUM (REGNO (operands[0])))"
> >
> > This is equivalent to "&& (!TARGET_IWMMXT || reload_completed)" since we're
> > already excluding NEON.
>
> Aehm, no.  This would split the addi_neon insn before it is clear
> if the reload pass will assign a VFP register.

Hmm that's strange... This instruction shouldn't be used to also split some 
random
Neon pattern - for example arm_subdi3 doesn't do the same. To understand and
reason about any of these complex patterns they should all work in the same 
way...

> But when I make *arm_cmpdi_insn split early, it ICEs:

(insn 4870 4869 1636 87 (set (scratch:SI)
 (minus:SI (minus:SI (subreg:SI (reg:DI 2261) 4)
 (subreg:SI (reg:DI 473 [ X$14 ]) 4))
 (ltu:SI (reg:CC_C 100 cc)
 (const_int 0 [0] "pr77308-2.c":140 -1
  (nil))

That's easy, we don't have a sbcs , r1, r2 pattern. A quick workaround 
is
to create a temporary for operand[2] (if before reload) so it will match the 
standard
sbcs pattern, and then the split works fine.

> So it is certainly possible, but not really simple to improve the
> stack size even further.  But I would prefer to do that in a
> separate patch.

Yes separate patches would be fine. However there is a lot of scope to improve 
this
further. For example after your patch shifts and logical operations are 
expanded in
expand, add/sub are in split1 after combine runs and everything else is split 
after
reload. It doesn't make sense to split different operations at different times 
- it means
you're still going to get the bad DImode subregs and miss lots of optimization
opportunities due to the mix of partly split and partly not-yet-split 
operations.

> BTW: there are also negd2_compare, *negdi_extendsidi,
> *negdi_zero_extendsidi, *thumb2_negdi2.

I have a patch to merge thumb2_negdi2 into arm_negdi2. For extends, if we split 
them
at expand time, then none of the combined alu+extend patterns will be needed, 
and
that will be a huge simplification.

> I think it would be a precondition to have test cases that exercise
> each of these patterns before we try to split these instructions.

Agreed.

Wilco

Re: [PATCH, ARM] Further improve stack usage on sha512 (PR 77308)

[Bernd Edlinger]

On 11/29/16 16:06, Wilco Dijkstra wrote:
> Bernd Edlinger wrote:
>
> -  "TARGET_32BIT && reload_completed
> +  "TARGET_32BIT && ((!TARGET_NEON && !TARGET_IWMMXT) || reload_completed)
> && ! (TARGET_NEON && IS_VFP_REGNUM (REGNO (operands[0])))"
>
> This is equivalent to "&& (!TARGET_IWMMXT || reload_completed)" since we're
> already excluding NEON.
>

Aehm, no.  This would split the addi_neon insn before it is clear
if the reload pass will assign a VFP register.

With this change the stack usage with -mfpu=neon increases
from 2300 to around 2600 bytes.

> This patch expands ADD and SUB earlier, so shouldn't we do the same obvious
> change for the similar instructions CMP and NEG?
>

Good question.  I think the cmp and neg pattern are more complicated
and do typically have a more complicated data flow than the other
patterns.

I tried to create a test case which expands cmpdi and negdi patterns
as follows:

--- pr77308-1.c 2016-11-25 17:53:20.379141465 +0100
+++ pr77308-2.c 2016-11-29 20:46:51.266948631 +0100
@@ -68,10 +68,10 @@
  #define B(x,j)(((SHA_LONG64)(*(((const unsigned char 
*)())+j)))<<((7-j)*8))
  #define PULL64(x) 
(B(x,0)|B(x,1)|B(x,2)|B(x,3)|B(x,4)|B(x,5)|B(x,6)|B(x,7))
  #define ROTR(x,s)   (((x)>>s) | (x)<<(64-s))
-#define Sigma0(x)   ~(ROTR((x),28) ^ ROTR((x),34) ^ ROTR((x),39))
-#define Sigma1(x)   ~(ROTR((x),14) ^ ROTR((x),18) ^ ROTR((x),41))
-#define sigma0(x)   ~(ROTR((x),1)  ^ ROTR((x),8)  ^ ((x)>>7))
-#define sigma1(x)   ~(ROTR((x),19) ^ ROTR((x),61) ^ ((x)>>6))
+#define Sigma0(x)   (ROTR((x),28) ^ ROTR((x),34) ^ ROTR((x),39) == 
(x) ? -(x) : (x))
+#define Sigma1(x)   (ROTR((x),14) ^ ROTR(-(x),18) ^ ROTR((x),41) < 
(x) ? -(x) : (x))
+#define sigma0(x)   (ROTR((x),1)  ^ ROTR((x),8)  ^ ((x)>>7) <= (x) 
? ~(x) : (x))
+#define sigma1(x)   ((long long)(ROTR((x),19) ^ ROTR((x),61) ^ 
((x)>>6)) < (long long)(x) ? -(x) : (x))
  #define Ch(x,y,z)   (((x) & (y)) ^ ((~(x)) & (z)))
  #define Maj(x,y,z)  (((x) & (y)) ^ ((x) & (z)) ^ ((y) & (z)))


This expands *arm_negdi2, *arm_cmpdi_unsigned, *arm_cmpdi_insn.
The stack usage is around 1900 bytes with previous patch,
and 2300 bytes without.

I tried to split *arm_negdi2 and *arm_cmpdi_unsined early, and it
gives indeed smaller stack sizes in the test case above (~400 bytes).
But when I make *arm_cmpdi_insn split early, it ICEs:

--- arm.md.orig 2016-11-27 09:22:41.794790123 +0100
+++ arm.md  2016-11-29 21:51:51.438163078 +0100
@@ -7432,7 +7432,7 @@
 (clobber (match_scratch:SI 2 "=r"))]
"TARGET_32BIT"
"#"   ; "cmp\\t%Q0, %Q1\;sbcs\\t%2, %R0, %R1"
-  "&& reload_completed"
+  "&& ((!TARGET_NEON && !TARGET_IWMMXT) || reload_completed)"
[(set (reg:CC CC_REGNUM)
  (compare:CC (match_dup 0) (match_dup 1)))
 (parallel [(set (reg:CC CC_REGNUM)

ontop of the latest patch, I got:

gcc -S -Os pr77308-2.c -fdump-rtl-all-verbose
pr77308-2.c: In function 'sha512_block_data_order':
pr77308-2.c:169:1: error: unrecognizable insn:
  }
  ^
(insn 4870 4869 1636 87 (set (scratch:SI)
 (minus:SI (minus:SI (subreg:SI (reg:DI 2261) 4)
 (subreg:SI (reg:DI 473 [ X$14 ]) 4))
 (ltu:SI (reg:CC_C 100 cc)
 (const_int 0 [0] "pr77308-2.c":140 -1
  (nil))
pr77308-2.c:169:1: internal compiler error: in extract_insn, at recog.c:2311
0xaf4cd8 _fatal_insn(char const*, rtx_def const*, char const*, int, char 
const*)
../../gcc-trunk/gcc/rtl-error.c:108
0xaf4d09 _fatal_insn_not_found(rtx_def const*, char const*, int, char 
const*)
../../gcc-trunk/gcc/rtl-error.c:116
0xac74ef extract_insn(rtx_insn*)
../../gcc-trunk/gcc/recog.c:2311
0x122427a decompose_multiword_subregs
../../gcc-trunk/gcc/lower-subreg.c:1467
0x122550d execute
../../gcc-trunk/gcc/lower-subreg.c:1734


So it is certainly possible, but not really simple to improve the
stack size even further.  But I would prefer to do that in a
separate patch.

BTW: there are also negd2_compare, *negdi_extendsidi,
*negdi_zero_extendsidi, *thumb2_negdi2.

I think it would be a precondition to have test cases that exercise
each of these patterns before we try to split these instructions.


Bernd.

Re: [PATCH, ARM] Further improve stack usage on sha512 (PR 77308)

[Bernd Edlinger]

On 11/25/16 12:30, Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 6, 2016 at 2:18 PM, Bernd Edlinger
>  wrote:
>> Hi!
>>
>> This improves the stack usage on the sha512 test case for the case
>> without hardware fpu and without iwmmxt by splitting all di-mode
>> patterns right while expanding which is similar to what the shift-pattern
>> does.  It does nothing in the case iwmmxt and fpu=neon or vfp as well as
>> thumb1.
>>
>
> I would go further and do this in the absence of Neon, the VFP unit
> being there doesn't help with DImode operations i.e. we do not have 64
> bit integer arithmetic instructions without Neon. The main reason why
> we have the DImode patterns split so late is to give a chance for
> folks who want to do 64 bit arithmetic in Neon a chance to make this
> work as well as support some of the 64 bit Neon intrinsics which IIRC
> map down to these instructions. Doing this just for soft-float doesn't
> improve the default case only. I don't usually test iwmmxt and I'm not
> sure who has the ability to do so, thus keeping this restriction for
> iwMMX is fine.
>
>

Yes I understand, thanks for pointing that out.

I was not aware what iwmmxt exists at all, but I noticed that most
64bit expansions work completely different, and would break if we split
the pattern early.

I can however only look at the assembler outout for iwmmxt, and make
sure that the stack usage does not get worse.

Thus the new version of the patch keeps only thumb1, neon and iwmmxt as
it is: around 1570 (thumb1), 2300 (neon) and 2200 (wimmxt) bytes stack
for the test cases, and vfp and soft-float at around 270 bytes stack
usage.

>> It reduces the stack usage from 2300 to near optimal 272 bytes (!).
>>
>> Note this also splits many ldrd/strd instructions and therefore I will
>> post a followup-patch that mitigates this effect by enabling the ldrd/strd
>> peephole optimization after the necessary reg-testing.
>>
>>
>> Bootstrapped and reg-tested on arm-linux-gnueabihf.
>
> What do you mean by arm-linux-gnueabihf - when folks say that I
> interpret it as --with-arch=armv7-a --with-float=hard
> --with-fpu=vfpv3-d16 or (--with-fpu=neon).
>
> If you've really bootstrapped and regtested it on armhf, doesn't this
> patch as it stand have no effect there i.e. no change ?
> arm-linux-gnueabihf usually means to me someone has configured with
> --with-float=hard, so there are no regressions in the hard float ABI
> case,
>

I know it proves little.  When I say arm-linux-gnueabihf
I do in fact mean --enable-languages=all,ada,go,obj-c++
--with-arch=armv7-a --with-tune=cortex-a9 --with-fpu=vfpv3-d16
--with-float=hard.

My main interest in the stack usage is of course not because of linux,
but because of eCos where we have very small task stacks and in fact
no fpu support by the O/S at all, so that patch is exactly what we need.


Bootstrapped and reg-tested on arm-linux-gnueabihf
Is it OK for trunk?


Thanks
Bernd.
2016-11-25  Bernd Edlinger  

	PR target/77308
	* config/arm/arm.md (*arm_adddi3, *arm_subdi3): Split early except for
	TARGET_NEON and TARGET_IWMMXT.
	(anddi3, iordi3, xordi3, one_cmpldi2): Split while expanding except for
	TARGET_NEON and TARGET_IWMMXT.
	(*one_cmpldi2_insn): Moved the body of one_cmpldi2 here.

testsuite:
2016-11-25  Bernd Edlinger  

	PR target/77308
	* gcc.target/arm/pr77308-1.c: New test.

Index: gcc/config/arm/arm.md
===
--- gcc/config/arm/arm.md	(revision 242875)
+++ gcc/config/arm/arm.md	(working copy)
@@ -467,7 +467,7 @@
(clobber (reg:CC CC_REGNUM))]
   "TARGET_32BIT && !TARGET_NEON"
   "#"
-  "TARGET_32BIT && reload_completed
+  "TARGET_32BIT && ((!TARGET_NEON && !TARGET_IWMMXT) || reload_completed)
&& ! (TARGET_NEON && IS_VFP_REGNUM (REGNO (operands[0])))"
   [(parallel [(set (reg:CC_C CC_REGNUM)
 		   (compare:CC_C (plus:SI (match_dup 1) (match_dup 2))
@@ -1272,7 +1272,7 @@
(clobber (reg:CC CC_REGNUM))]
   "TARGET_32BIT && !TARGET_NEON"
   "#"  ; "subs\\t%Q0, %Q1, %Q2\;sbc\\t%R0, %R1, %R2"
-  "&& reload_completed"
+  "&& (!TARGET_IWMMXT || reload_completed)"
   [(parallel [(set (reg:CC CC_REGNUM)
 		   (compare:CC (match_dup 1) (match_dup 2)))
 	  (set (match_dup 0) (minus:SI (match_dup 1) (match_dup 2)))])
@@ -2258,7 +2258,24 @@
 	(and:DI (match_operand:DI 1 "s_register_operand" "")
 		(match_operand:DI 2 "neon_inv_logic_op2" "")))]
   "TARGET_32BIT"
-  ""
+  "
+  if (!TARGET_NEON && !TARGET_IWMMXT)
+{
+  rtx low  = simplify_gen_binary (AND, SImode,
+  gen_lowpart (SImode, operands[1]),
+  gen_lowpart (SImode, operands[2]));
+  rtx high = simplify_gen_binary (AND, SImode,
+  gen_highpart (SImode, operands[1]),
+  gen_highpart_mode (SImode, DImode,
+			 operands[2]));
+
+  emit_insn (gen_rtx_SET (gen_lowpart (SImode, operands[0]), low));
+  emit_insn (gen_rtx_SET (gen_highpart (SImode, 

Re: [PATCH, ARM] Further improve stack usage on sha512 (PR 77308)

[Ramana Radhakrishnan]

On Sun, Nov 6, 2016 at 2:18 PM, Bernd Edlinger
 wrote:
> Hi!
>
> This improves the stack usage on the sha512 test case for the case
> without hardware fpu and without iwmmxt by splitting all di-mode
> patterns right while expanding which is similar to what the shift-pattern
> does.  It does nothing in the case iwmmxt and fpu=neon or vfp as well as
> thumb1.
>

I would go further and do this in the absence of Neon, the VFP unit
being there doesn't help with DImode operations i.e. we do not have 64
bit integer arithmetic instructions without Neon. The main reason why
we have the DImode patterns split so late is to give a chance for
folks who want to do 64 bit arithmetic in Neon a chance to make this
work as well as support some of the 64 bit Neon intrinsics which IIRC
map down to these instructions. Doing this just for soft-float doesn't
improve the default case only. I don't usually test iwmmxt and I'm not
sure who has the ability to do so, thus keeping this restriction for
iwMMX is fine.


> It reduces the stack usage from 2300 to near optimal 272 bytes (!).
>
> Note this also splits many ldrd/strd instructions and therefore I will
> post a followup-patch that mitigates this effect by enabling the ldrd/strd
> peephole optimization after the necessary reg-testing.
>
>
> Bootstrapped and reg-tested on arm-linux-gnueabihf.

What do you mean by arm-linux-gnueabihf - when folks say that I
interpret it as --with-arch=armv7-a --with-float=hard
--with-fpu=vfpv3-d16 or (--with-fpu=neon).

If you've really bootstrapped and regtested it on armhf, doesn't this
patch as it stand have no effect there i.e. no change ?
arm-linux-gnueabihf usually means to me someone has configured with
--with-float=hard, so there are no regressions in the hard float ABI
case,


Ramana

> Is it OK for trunk?
>
>
> Thanks
> Bernd.

[PING**2] [PATCH, ARM] Further improve stack usage on sha512 (PR 77308)

[Bernd Edlinger]

Hi,

this patch is still waiting for review:

[PATCH, ARM] Further improve stack usage on sha512 (PR 77308)
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-11/msg00523.html


Thanks
Bernd.

[PING] [PATCH, ARM] Further improve stack usage on sha512 (PR 77308)

[Bernd Edlinger]

Hi,

I'd like to ping for these two patches:

[PATCH, ARM] Further improve stack usage on sha512 (PR 77308)
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-11/msg00523.html

[PATCH, ARM] Enable ldrd/strd peephole rules unconditionally
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-11/msg00830.html


Thanks
Bernd.

[PATCH, ARM] Further improve stack usage on sha512 (PR 77308)

[Bernd Edlinger]

Hi!

This improves the stack usage on the sha512 test case for the case
without hardware fpu and without iwmmxt by splitting all di-mode
patterns right while expanding which is similar to what the shift-pattern
does.  It does nothing in the case iwmmxt and fpu=neon or vfp as well as
thumb1.

It reduces the stack usage from 2300 to near optimal 272 bytes (!).

Note this also splits many ldrd/strd instructions and therefore I will
post a followup-patch that mitigates this effect by enabling the ldrd/strd
peephole optimization after the necessary reg-testing.


Bootstrapped and reg-tested on arm-linux-gnueabihf.
Is it OK for trunk?


Thanks
Bernd.2016-11-02  Bernd Edlinger  

	PR target/77308
	* config/arm/arm.md (*arm_adddi3, *arm_subdi3): Split early except for
	TARGET_HARD_FLOAT.
	(anddi3, iordi3, xordi3): Split while expanding except for
	TARGET_HARD_FLOAT and TARGET_IWMMXT.
	(one_cmpldi2): Split while expanding except for TARGET_HARD_FLOAT.
	(*one_cmpldi2_insn): Moved the body of one_cmpldi2 here.

testsuite:
2016-11-02  Bernd Edlinger  

	PR target/77308
	* gcc.target/arm/pr77308-1.c: New test.

Index: gcc/config/arm/arm.md
===
--- gcc/config/arm/arm.md	(revision 241686)
+++ gcc/config/arm/arm.md	(working copy)
@@ -467,7 +467,7 @@
(clobber (reg:CC CC_REGNUM))]
   "TARGET_32BIT && !TARGET_NEON"
   "#"
-  "TARGET_32BIT && reload_completed
+  "TARGET_32BIT && (!TARGET_HARD_FLOAT || reload_completed)
&& ! (TARGET_NEON && IS_VFP_REGNUM (REGNO (operands[0])))"
   [(parallel [(set (reg:CC_C CC_REGNUM)
 		   (compare:CC_C (plus:SI (match_dup 1) (match_dup 2))
@@ -1271,7 +1271,7 @@
(clobber (reg:CC CC_REGNUM))]
   "TARGET_32BIT && !TARGET_NEON"
   "#"  ; "subs\\t%Q0, %Q1, %Q2\;sbc\\t%R0, %R1, %R2"
-  "&& reload_completed"
+  "&& (!TARGET_HARD_FLOAT || reload_completed)"
   [(parallel [(set (reg:CC CC_REGNUM)
 		   (compare:CC (match_dup 1) (match_dup 2)))
 	  (set (match_dup 0) (minus:SI (match_dup 1) (match_dup 2)))])
@@ -2257,7 +2257,24 @@
 	(and:DI (match_operand:DI 1 "s_register_operand" "")
 		(match_operand:DI 2 "neon_inv_logic_op2" "")))]
   "TARGET_32BIT"
-  ""
+  "
+  if (!TARGET_HARD_FLOAT && !TARGET_IWMMXT)
+{
+  rtx low  = simplify_gen_binary (AND, SImode,
+  gen_lowpart (SImode, operands[1]),
+  gen_lowpart (SImode, operands[2]));
+  rtx high = simplify_gen_binary (AND, SImode,
+  gen_highpart (SImode, operands[1]),
+  gen_highpart_mode (SImode, DImode,
+			 operands[2]));
+
+  emit_insn (gen_rtx_SET (gen_lowpart (SImode, operands[0]), low));
+  emit_insn (gen_rtx_SET (gen_highpart (SImode, operands[0]), high));
+
+  DONE;
+}
+  /* Otherwise expand pattern as above.  */
+  "
 )
 
 (define_insn_and_split "*anddi3_insn"
@@ -3130,7 +3147,24 @@
 	(ior:DI (match_operand:DI 1 "s_register_operand" "")
 		(match_operand:DI 2 "neon_logic_op2" "")))]
   "TARGET_32BIT"
-  ""
+  "
+  if (!TARGET_HARD_FLOAT && !TARGET_IWMMXT)
+{
+  rtx low  = simplify_gen_binary (IOR, SImode,
+  gen_lowpart (SImode, operands[1]),
+  gen_lowpart (SImode, operands[2]));
+  rtx high = simplify_gen_binary (IOR, SImode,
+  gen_highpart (SImode, operands[1]),
+  gen_highpart_mode (SImode, DImode,
+			 operands[2]));
+
+  emit_insn (gen_rtx_SET (gen_lowpart (SImode, operands[0]), low));
+  emit_insn (gen_rtx_SET (gen_highpart (SImode, operands[0]), high));
+
+  DONE;
+}
+  /* Otherwise expand pattern as above.  */
+  "
 )
 
 (define_insn_and_split "*iordi3_insn"
@@ -3311,7 +3345,24 @@
 	(xor:DI (match_operand:DI 1 "s_register_operand" "")
 		(match_operand:DI 2 "arm_xordi_operand" "")))]
   "TARGET_32BIT"
-  ""
+  "
+  if (!TARGET_HARD_FLOAT && !TARGET_IWMMXT)
+{
+  rtx low  = simplify_gen_binary (XOR, SImode,
+  gen_lowpart (SImode, operands[1]),
+  gen_lowpart (SImode, operands[2]));
+  rtx high = simplify_gen_binary (XOR, SImode,
+  gen_highpart (SImode, operands[1]),
+  gen_highpart_mode (SImode, DImode,
+			 operands[2]));
+
+  emit_insn (gen_rtx_SET (gen_lowpart (SImode, operands[0]), low));
+  emit_insn (gen_rtx_SET (gen_highpart (SImode, operands[0]), high));
+
+  DONE;
+}
+  /* Otherwise expand pattern as above.  */
+  "
 )
 
 (define_insn_and_split "*xordi3_insn"
@@ -5017,7 +5068,31 @@
   "TARGET_32BIT && TARGET_HARD_FLOAT && TARGET_VFP_DOUBLE"
   "")
 
-(define_insn_and_split "one_cmpldi2"
+(define_expand "one_cmpldi2"
+  [(set (match_operand:DI 0 "s_register_operand" "")
+	(not:DI (match_operand:DI 1 "s_register_operand" "")))]
+  "TARGET_32BIT"
+  "
+  if (!TARGET_HARD_FLOAT)
+{
+  rtx low  = simplify_gen_unary (NOT, SImode,
+ gen_lowpart (SImode, operands[1]),
+ SImode);
+  rtx high = simplify_gen_unary (NOT, SImode,
+ gen_highpart_mode (SImode, DImode,
+