2016-04-28 13:43 GMT+03:00 Uros Bizjak <ubiz...@gmail.com>:
> On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 12:36 PM, Ilya Enkovich <enkovich....@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> 2016-04-27 22:58 GMT+03:00 Uros Bizjak <ubiz...@gmail.com>:
>>> Hello!
>>>
>>> This RFC patch illustrates the idea of using STV pass to load/store
>>> any TImode constant using SSE insns. The testcase:
>>>
>>> --cut here--
>>> __int128 x;
>>>
>>> __int128 test_1 (void)
>>> {
>>> x = (__int128) 0x00112233;
>>> }
>>>
>>> __int128 test_2 (void)
>>> {
>>> x = ((__int128) 0x0011223344556677 << 64);
>>> }
>>>
>>> __int128 test_3 (void)
>>> {
>>> x = ((__int128) 0x0011223344556677 << 64) + (__int128) 0x0011223344556677;
>>> }
>>> --cut here--
>>>
>>> currently compiles (-O2) on x86_64 to:
>>>
>>> test_1:
>>> movq $1122867, x(%rip)
>>> movq $0, x+8(%rip)
>>> ret
>>>
>>> test_2:
>>> xorl %eax, %eax
>>> movabsq $4822678189205111, %rdx
>>> movq %rax, x(%rip)
>>> movq %rdx, x+8(%rip)
>>> ret
>>>
>>> test_3:
>>> movabsq $4822678189205111, %rax
>>> movabsq $4822678189205111, %rdx
>>> movq %rax, x(%rip)
>>> movq %rdx, x+8(%rip)
>>> ret
>>>
>>> However, using the attached patch, we compile all tests to:
>>>
>>> test:
>>> movdqa .LC0(%rip), %xmm0
>>> movaps %xmm0, x(%rip)
>>> ret
>>>
>>> Ilya, HJ - do you think new sequences are better, or - as suggested by
>>> Jakub - they are beneficial with STV pass, as we are now able to load
>>> any immediate value? A variant of this patch can also be used to load
>>> DImode values to 32bit STV pass.
>>>
>>> Uros.
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Why don't we have two movq instructions in all three cases now? Is it
>> because of late split?
>
> movq can handle only 32bit sign-extended immediates. There is actually
> room for improvement in test_2, where we could directly store 0 to
> x(%rip).
Right. In this case timode_scalar_chain::compute_convert_gain should
analyze immediate values used in a chain.
Thanks,
Ilya
>
> Uros.
>
>> I wouldn't say SSE load+store is always better than two movq instructions.
>> But it obviously can enable bigger chains for STV which is good. I think
>> you should adjust a cost model to handle immediates for proper decision.
>>
>> That's what I have in my draft for DImode immediates:
>>
>> @@ -3114,6 +3123,20 @@ scalar_chain::build (bitmap candidates,
>> unsigned insn_uid)
>> BITMAP_FREE (queue);
>> }
>>
>> +/* Return a cost of building a vector costant
>> + instead of using a scalar one. */
>> +
>> +int
>> +scalar_chain::vector_const_cost (rtx exp)
>> +{
>> + gcc_assert (CONST_INT_P (exp));
>> +
>> + if (const0_operand (exp, GET_MODE (exp))
>> + || constm1_operand (exp, GET_MODE (exp)))
>> + return COSTS_N_INSNS (1);
>> + return ix86_cost->sse_load[1];
>> +}
>> +
>> /* Compute a gain for chain conversion. */
>>
>> int
>> @@ -3145,11 +3168,25 @@ scalar_chain::compute_convert_gain ()
>> || GET_CODE (src) == IOR
>> || GET_CODE (src) == XOR
>> || GET_CODE (src) == AND)
>> - gain += ix86_cost->add;
>> + {
>> + gain += ix86_cost->add;
>> + if (CONST_INT_P (XEXP (src, 0)))
>> + gain -= scalar_chain::vector_const_cost (XEXP (src, 0));
>> + if (CONST_INT_P (XEXP (src, 1)))
>> + gain -= scalar_chain::vector_const_cost (XEXP (src, 1));
>> + }
>> else if (GET_CODE (src) == COMPARE)
>> {
>> /* Assume comparison cost is the same. */
>> }
>> + else if (GET_CODE (src) == CONST_INT)
>> + {
>> + if (REG_P (dst))
>> + gain += COSTS_N_INSNS (2);
>> + else if (MEM_P (dst))
>> + gain += 2 * ix86_cost->int_store[2] - ix86_cost->sse_store[1];
>> + gain -= scalar_chain::vector_const_cost (src);
>> + }
>> else
>> gcc_unreachable ();
