On 19/10/2020 17:32, Christophe Lyon via Gcc-patches wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Oct 2020 at 16:39, Richard Earnshaw
> <richard.earns...@foss.arm.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 12/10/2020 08:59, Christophe Lyon via Gcc-patches wrote:
>>> On Thu, 8 Oct 2020 at 11:58, Richard Earnshaw
>>> <richard.earns...@foss.arm.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 08/10/2020 10:07, Christophe Lyon via Gcc-patches wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 6 Oct 2020 at 18:02, Richard Earnshaw
>>>>> <richard.earns...@foss.arm.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 29/09/2020 20:50, Christophe Lyon via Gcc-patches wrote:
>>>>>>> When mi_delta is > 255 and -mpure-code is used, we cannot load delta
>>>>>>> from code memory (like we do without -mpure-code).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This patch builds the value of mi_delta into r3 with a series of
>>>>>>> movs/adds/lsls.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We also do some cleanup by not emitting the function address and delta
>>>>>>> via .word directives at the end of the thunk since we don't use them
>>>>>>> with -mpure-code.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No need for new testcases, this bug was already identified by
>>>>>>> eg. pr46287-3.C
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 2020-09-29 Christophe Lyon <christophe.l...@linaro.org>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> gcc/
>>>>>>> * config/arm/arm.c (arm_thumb1_mi_thunk): Build mi_delta in r3 and
>>>>>>> do not emit function address and delta when -mpure-code is used.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Richard,
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks for your comments.
>>>>>
>>>>>> There are some optimizations you can make to this code.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Firstly, for values between 256 and 510 (inclusive), it would be better
>>>>>> to just expand a mov of 255 followed by an add.
>>>>> I now see the splitted for the "Pe" constraint which I hadn't noticed
>>>>> before, so I can write something similar indeed.
>>>>>
>>>>> However, I'm note quite sure to understand the benefit in the split
>>>>> when -mpure-code is NOT used.
>>>>> Consider:
>>>>> int f3_1 (void) { return 510; }
>>>>> int f3_2 (void) { return 511; }
>>>>> Compile with -O2 -mcpu=cortex-m0:
>>>>> f3_1:
>>>>> movs r0, #255
>>>>> lsls r0, r0, #1
>>>>> bx lr
>>>>> f3_2:
>>>>> ldr r0, .L4
>>>>> bx lr
>>>>>
>>>>> The splitter makes the code bigger, does it "compensate" for this by
>>>>> not having to load the constant?
>>>>> Actually the constant uses 4 more bytes, which should be taken into
>>>>> account when comparing code size,
>>>>
>>>> Yes, the size of the literal pool entry needs to be taken into account.
>>>> It might happen that the entry could be shared with another use of that
>>>> literal, but in general that's rare.
>>>>
>>>>> so f3_1 uses 6 bytes, and f3_2 uses 8, so as you say below three
>>>>> thumb1 instructions would be equivalent in size compared to loading
>>>>> from the literal pool. Should the 256-510 range be extended?
>>>>
>>>> It's a bit borderline at three instructions when literal pools are not
>>>> expensive to use, but in thumb1 literal pools tend to be quite small due
>>>> to the limited pc offsets we can use. I think on balance we probably
>>>> want to use the instruction sequence unless optimizing for size.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> This is also true for
>>>>>> the literal pools alternative as well, so should be handled before all
>>>>>> this.
>>>>> I am not sure what you mean: with -mpure-code, the above sample is
>>>>> compiled as:
>>>>> f3_1:
>>>>> movs r0, #255
>>>>> lsls r0, r0, #1
>>>>> bx lr
>>>>> f3_2:
>>>>> movs r0, #1
>>>>> lsls r0, r0, #8
>>>>> adds r0, r0, #255
>>>>> bx lr
>>>>>
>>>>> so the "return 510" case is already handled as without -mpure-code.
>>>>
>>>> I was thinking specifically of the thunk sequence where you seem to be
>>>> emitting instructions directly rather than generating RTL. The examples
>>>> you show here are not thunks.
>>>>
>>> OK thanks for the clarification.
>>>
>>> Here is an updated version, split into 3 patches to hopefully make
>>> review easier.
>>> They apply on top of my other mpure-code patches for PR96967 and PR96770:
>>> https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2020-September/554956.html
>>> https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2020-September/554957.html
>>>
>>> I kept it this way to make incremental changes easier to understand.
>>>
>>> Patch 1: With the hope to avoid confusion and make maintenance easier,
>>> I have updated thumb1_gen_const_int() so that it can generate either RTL or
>>> asm. This way, all the code used to build thumb-1 constants is in the
>>> same place,
>>> in case we need to improve/fix it later. We now generate shorter sequences
>>> in
>>> several cases matching your comments.
>>>
>>> Patch 2: Removes the equivalent loop from thumb1_movsi_insn pattern and
>>> calls thumb1_gen_const_int.
>>>
>>> Patch 3: Update of the original patch in this thread, now calls
>>> thumb1_gen_const_int.
>>
>> Yuk! Those changes to thumb1_gen_const_int are horrible.
>>
>> I think we should be able to leverage the fact that the compiler can use
>> C++ now to do much better than that, for example by making that function
>> a template. For example (and this is just a sketch):
>>
>
> Indeed! I didn't think about it since there is no other use of
> templates in arm.c yet.
> I'll send an update soon.
>
> Other than that, does the approach look OK to you?
>
Yes, I think this is heading in the right direction. Bringing the two
immediate generating operations into a single function can only be a
good thing.
Looking again at your example constant sequences, I see:
0x1000010:
movs r3, #16
lsls r3, #16
adds r3, #1
lsls r3, #4
0x1000011:
movs r3, #1
lsls r3, #24
adds r3, #17
The first of these looks odd, given the second sequence. Why doesn't
the first expand to
0x1000010:
movs r3, #16
lsls r3, #16
adds r3, #16
?
R.
> Thanks,
>
> Christophe
>
>> class t1_rtl
>> {
>> public:
>> void ashift(int a) { gen_rtx_ASHIFT(a); }
>> void rshift(int b) { gen_rtx_SHIFTRT(b); }
>> };
>>
>> class t1_print
>> {
>> public:
>> t1_print (FILE *f) : t_file(f) {}
>> void ashift (int a) { fprintf (t_file, "a shift %d\n", a); }
>> void rshift (int b) { fprintf (t_file, "r shift %d\n", b); }
>> private:
>> FILE *t_file;
>> };
>>
>> template <class T>
>> void thumb1_gen_const_int(T t, int f)
>> {
>> // Expansion of thumb1_gen_const_int ...
>> t.ashift(f);
>> }
>>
>> // Usage...
>> void f1()
>> {
>> // Use the RTL expander
>> t1_rtl g;
>> thumb1_gen_const_int (g, 3);
>> }
>>
>> void f2()
>> {
>> // Use the printf expander writing to stdout
>> t1_print g(stdout);
>> thumb1_gen_const_int (g, 3);
>> }
>>
>> With this you can write thumb1_gen_const_int without having to worry
>> about which expander is being used in each instance and the template
>> expansion will use the right version.
>>
>> R.
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> I also suspect (but haven't check) that the base adjustment will
>>>>>> most commonly be a multiple of the machine word size (ie 4). If that is
>>>>>> the case then you could generate n/4 and then shift it left by 2 for an
>>>>>> even greater range of literals.
>>>>> I can see there is provision for this in the !TARGET_THUMB1_ONLY case,
>>>>> I'll update my patch.
>>>>>
>>>>>> More generally, any sequence of up to
>>>>>> three thumb1 instructions will be no larger, and probably as fast as the
>>>>>> existing literal pool fall back.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Secondly, if the value is, for example, 65536 (0x10000), your code will
>>>>>> emit a mov followed by two shift-by-8 instructions; the two shifts could
>>>>>> be merged into a single shift-by-16.
>>>>>
>>>>> Right, I'll try to make use of thumb_shiftable_const.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Finally, I'd really like to see some executable tests for this, if at
>>>>>> all possible.
>>>>> I mentioned pr46287-3.C, but that's not the only existing testcase
>>>>> that showed the problem. There are also:
>>>>> g++.dg/opt/thunk1.C
>>>>> g++.dg/ipa/pr46984.C
>>>>> g++.dg/torture/pr46287.C
>>>>> g++.dg/torture/pr45699.C
>>>>>
>>>>> Do you want that I copy one of these in the arm subdir and add
>>>>> -mpure-code in dg-options?
>>>>
>>>> On reflection, probably not - that just makes things more complicated
>>>> with all the dg-options mess (I'm worried about interactions with other
>>>> sets of options on the command line and the fall-out from that). If
>>>> someone cares about pure-code they should be doing full testsuite runs
>>>> with it enabled and that should be sufficient.
>>>
>>> Yes, that's what I am doing manually, it's a bit tricky, and I use a
>>> modified simulator.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Christophe
>>>
>>>>
>>>> R.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>
>>>>> Christophe
>>>>>
>>>>>> R.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> k# (use "git pull" to merge the remote branch into yours)
>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>> gcc/config/arm/arm.c | 91
>>>>>>> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------------
>>>>>>> 1 file changed, 66 insertions(+), 25 deletions(-)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> diff --git a/gcc/config/arm/arm.c b/gcc/config/arm/arm.c
>>>>>>> index ceeb91f..62abeb5 100644
>>>>>>> --- a/gcc/config/arm/arm.c
>>>>>>> +++ b/gcc/config/arm/arm.c
>>>>>>> @@ -28342,9 +28342,43 @@ arm_thumb1_mi_thunk (FILE *file, tree,
>>>>>>> HOST_WIDE_INT delta,
>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>> if (mi_delta > 255)
>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>> - fputs ("\tldr\tr3, ", file);
>>>>>>> - assemble_name (file, label);
>>>>>>> - fputs ("+4\n", file);
>>>>>>> + /* With -mpure-code, we cannot load delta from the constant
>>>>>>> + pool: we build it explicitly. */
>>>>>>> + if (target_pure_code)
>>>>>>> + {
>>>>>>> + bool mov_done_p = false;
>>>>>>> + int i;
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> + /* Emit upper 3 bytes if needed. */
>>>>>>> + for (i = 0; i < 3; i++)
>>>>>>> + {
>>>>>>> + int byte = (mi_delta >> (8 * (3 - i))) & 0xff;
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> + if (byte)
>>>>>>> + {
>>>>>>> + if (mov_done_p)
>>>>>>> + asm_fprintf (file, "\tadds\tr3, #%d\n", byte);
>>>>>>> + else
>>>>>>> + asm_fprintf (file, "\tmovs\tr3, #%d\n", byte);
>>>>>>> + mov_done_p = true;
>>>>>>> + }
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> + if (mov_done_p)
>>>>>>> + asm_fprintf (file, "\tlsls\tr3, #8\n");
>>>>>>> + }
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> + /* Emit lower byte if needed. */
>>>>>>> + if (!mov_done_p)
>>>>>>> + asm_fprintf (file, "\tmovs\tr3, #%d\n", mi_delta & 0xff);
>>>>>>> + else if (mi_delta & 0xff)
>>>>>>> + asm_fprintf (file, "\tadds\tr3, #%d\n", mi_delta & 0xff);
>>>>>>> + }
>>>>>>> + else
>>>>>>> + {
>>>>>>> + fputs ("\tldr\tr3, ", file);
>>>>>>> + assemble_name (file, label);
>>>>>>> + fputs ("+4\n", file);
>>>>>>> + }
>>>>>>> asm_fprintf (file, "\t%ss\t%r, %r, r3\n",
>>>>>>> mi_op, this_regno, this_regno);
>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>> @@ -28380,30 +28414,37 @@ arm_thumb1_mi_thunk (FILE *file, tree,
>>>>>>> HOST_WIDE_INT delta,
>>>>>>> fputs ("\tpop\t{r3}\n", file);
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> fprintf (file, "\tbx\tr12\n");
>>>>>>> - ASM_OUTPUT_ALIGN (file, 2);
>>>>>>> - assemble_name (file, label);
>>>>>>> - fputs (":\n", file);
>>>>>>> - if (flag_pic)
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> + /* With -mpure-code, we don't need to emit literals for the
>>>>>>> + function address and delta since we emitted code to build
>>>>>>> + them. */
>>>>>>> + if (!target_pure_code)
>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>> - /* Output ".word .LTHUNKn-[3,7]-.LTHUNKPCn". */
>>>>>>> - rtx tem = XEXP (DECL_RTL (function), 0);
>>>>>>> - /* For TARGET_THUMB1_ONLY the thunk is in Thumb mode, so the PC
>>>>>>> - pipeline offset is four rather than eight. Adjust the offset
>>>>>>> - accordingly. */
>>>>>>> - tem = plus_constant (GET_MODE (tem), tem,
>>>>>>> - TARGET_THUMB1_ONLY ? -3 : -7);
>>>>>>> - tem = gen_rtx_MINUS (GET_MODE (tem),
>>>>>>> - tem,
>>>>>>> - gen_rtx_SYMBOL_REF (Pmode,
>>>>>>> - ggc_strdup (labelpc)));
>>>>>>> - assemble_integer (tem, 4, BITS_PER_WORD, 1);
>>>>>>> - }
>>>>>>> - else
>>>>>>> - /* Output ".word .LTHUNKn". */
>>>>>>> - assemble_integer (XEXP (DECL_RTL (function), 0), 4,
>>>>>>> BITS_PER_WORD, 1);
>>>>>>> + ASM_OUTPUT_ALIGN (file, 2);
>>>>>>> + assemble_name (file, label);
>>>>>>> + fputs (":\n", file);
>>>>>>> + if (flag_pic)
>>>>>>> + {
>>>>>>> + /* Output ".word .LTHUNKn-[3,7]-.LTHUNKPCn". */
>>>>>>> + rtx tem = XEXP (DECL_RTL (function), 0);
>>>>>>> + /* For TARGET_THUMB1_ONLY the thunk is in Thumb mode, so
>>>>>>> the PC
>>>>>>> + pipeline offset is four rather than eight. Adjust the
>>>>>>> offset
>>>>>>> + accordingly. */
>>>>>>> + tem = plus_constant (GET_MODE (tem), tem,
>>>>>>> + TARGET_THUMB1_ONLY ? -3 : -7);
>>>>>>> + tem = gen_rtx_MINUS (GET_MODE (tem),
>>>>>>> + tem,
>>>>>>> + gen_rtx_SYMBOL_REF (Pmode,
>>>>>>> + ggc_strdup
>>>>>>> (labelpc)));
>>>>>>> + assemble_integer (tem, 4, BITS_PER_WORD, 1);
>>>>>>> + }
>>>>>>> + else
>>>>>>> + /* Output ".word .LTHUNKn". */
>>>>>>> + assemble_integer (XEXP (DECL_RTL (function), 0), 4,
>>>>>>> BITS_PER_WORD, 1);
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> - if (TARGET_THUMB1_ONLY && mi_delta > 255)
>>>>>>> - assemble_integer (GEN_INT(mi_delta), 4, BITS_PER_WORD, 1);
>>>>>>> + if (TARGET_THUMB1_ONLY && mi_delta > 255)
>>>>>>> + assemble_integer (GEN_INT(mi_delta), 4, BITS_PER_WORD, 1);
>>>>>>> + }
>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>> else
>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>
