On 07/02/17 14:49, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
On 18/01/17 09:49, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
On 19/12/16 14:53, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 10:00:14AM +0000, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote:
sorry, pasted the wrong bit of code.
That should read when we generate:
(insn 55 19 67 3 (parallel [
(set (reg:SI 0 r0)
(mem/u/c:SI (reg/f:SI 147) [2 c+0 S4 A32]))
(set (reg:SI 158)
(mem/u/c:SI (plus:SI (reg/f:SI 147)
(const_int 4 [0x4])) [2 c+4 S4 A32]))
]) "ldm.c":25 404 {*load_multiple}
(expr_list:REG_UNUSED (reg:SI 0 r0)
(nil)))
ie when we put a pseudo into the register load list.
We put a pseudo there because the predicate on the insn allows it:
(define_special_predicate "load_multiple_operation"
(match_code "parallel")
{
return ldm_stm_operation_p (op, /*load=*/true, SImode,
/*consecutive=*/false,
/*return_pc=*/false);
})
and the consecutive = false argument says that (almost) no verification
is performed on the SET_DEST, just that it is a REG and doesn't have
REGNO smaller than the first reg.
That said, RA is still not able to cope with such instructions, because
only the first set is represented with constraints, so if such an insn
needs any kind of reloading, it just will not happen.
So I think the posted patch makes lots of sense, otherwise if you use
such a pattern before reload, you just have to hope no reloading will be
needed on it.
In that case I believe restricting the pattern till after LRA is the way to go.
However, we should still add the check from [1] to ldm_stm_operation_p for when
'consecutive' is true as consecutive order has no useful meaning on pseudos
here.
In the interest of fixing this PR I think the patch at
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-11/msg03078.html
is the way to go, that is disable this pattern until after reload.
It was intended to handle epilogue pops that is generated after reload anyway
and all the general load/store multiple
patterns are handled by ldmstmd.md so not having this before reload is not
risky.
I'll also propose a variant of
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-12/msg01400.html to tighten up the
consecutivity
check when 'consecutive' is passed down as true, but that is indepdendent of
this PR.
Is the patch at https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-11/msg03078.html ok for
trunk?
It's been in my tree for a couple of months now getting testing and there's
been no fallout.
Ping.
Thanks,
Kyrill
Thanks,
Kyrill
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-12/msg01400.html
Jakub
