on 2022/1/14 上午12:31, David Edelsohn wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 13, 2022 at 7:28 AM Kewen.Lin <li...@linux.ibm.com> wrote:
>>
>> on 2022/1/13 上午11:56, Kewen.Lin via Gcc-patches wrote:
>>> on 2022/1/13 上午11:44, David Edelsohn wrote:
>>>> On Wed, Jan 12, 2022 at 10:38 PM Kewen.Lin <li...@linux.ibm.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi David,
>>>>>
>>>>> on 2022/1/13 上午11:07, David Edelsohn wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, Jan 12, 2022 at 8:56 PM Kewen.Lin <li...@linux.ibm.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This patch is to fix register constraint v with
>>>>>>> rs6000_constraints[RS6000_CONSTRAINT_v] instead of ALTIVEC_REGS,
>>>>>>> just like some other existing register constraints with
>>>>>>> RS6000_CONSTRAINT_*.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I happened to see this and hope it's not intentional and just
>>>>>>> got neglected.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Bootstrapped and regtested on powerpc64le-linux-gnu P9 and
>>>>>>> powerpc64-linux-gnu P8.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Is it ok for trunk?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why do you want to make this change?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> rs6000_constraints[RS6000_CONSTRAINT_v] = ALTIVEC_REGS;
>>>>>>
>>>>>> but all of the patterns that use a "v" constraint are (or should be)
>>>>>> protected by TARGET_ALTIVEC, or some final condition that only is
>>>>>> active for TARGET_ALTIVEC. The other constraints are conditionally
>>>>>> set because they can be used in a pattern with multiple alternatives
>>>>>> where the pattern itself is active but some of the constraints
>>>>>> correspond to NO_REGS when some instruction variants for VSX is not
>>>>>> enabled.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Good point! Thanks for the explanation.
>>>>>
>>>>>> The change isn't wrong, but it doesn't correct a bug and provides no
>>>>>> additional benefit nor clarty that I can see.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The original intention is to make it consistent with the other existing
>>>>> register constraints with RS6000_CONSTRAINT_*, otherwise it looks a bit
>>>>> weird (like was neglected). After you clarified above,
>>>>> RS6000_CONSTRAINT_v
>>>>> seems useless at all in the current framework. Do you prefer to remove
>>>>> it to avoid any confusions instead?
>>>>
>>>> It's used in the reg_class, so there may be some heuristic in the GCC
>>>> register allocator that cares about the number of registers available
>>>> for the target. rs6000_constraints[RS6000_CONSTRAINT_v] is defined
>>>> conditionally, so it seems best to leave it as is.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I may miss something, but I didn't find it's used for the above purposes.
>>> If it's best to leave it as is, the proposed patch seems to offer better
>>> readability.
>>
>> Two more inputs for maintainers' decision:
>>
>> 1) the original proposed patch fixed one "bug" that is:
>>
>> In function rs6000_debug_reg_global, it tries to print the register class
>> for the register constraint:
>>
>> fprintf (stderr,
>> "\n"
>> "d reg_class = %s\n"
>> "f reg_class = %s\n"
>> "v reg_class = %s\n"
>> "wa reg_class = %s\n"
>> ...
>> "\n",
>> reg_class_names[rs6000_constraints[RS6000_CONSTRAINT_d]],
>> reg_class_names[rs6000_constraints[RS6000_CONSTRAINT_f]],
>> reg_class_names[rs6000_constraints[RS6000_CONSTRAINT_v]],
>> reg_class_names[rs6000_constraints[RS6000_CONSTRAINT_wa]],
>> ...
>>
>> It uses rs6000_constraints[RS6000_CONSTRAINT_v] which is conditionally
>> set here:
>>
>> /* Add conditional constraints based on various options, to allow us to
>> collapse multiple insn patterns. */
>> if (TARGET_ALTIVEC)
>> rs6000_constraints[RS6000_CONSTRAINT_v] = ALTIVEC_REGS;
>>
>> But the actual register class for register constraint is hardcoded as
>> ALTIVEC_REGS rather than rs6000_constraints[RS6000_CONSTRAINT_v].
>
> I agree that the information is inaccurate, but it is informal
> debugging output. And if Altivec is disabled, the value of the
> constraint is irrelevant / garbage.
>
Yeah, but IMHO it still can confuse new comers at first glance.
>>
>> 2) Bootstrapped and tested one below patch to remove all the code using
>> RS6000_CONSTRAINT_v on powerpc64le-linux-gnu P10 and P9,
>> powerpc64-linux-gnu P8 and P7 with no regressions.
>>
>> diff --git a/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.c b/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.c
>> index 37f07fe5358..3652629c5d0 100644
>> --- a/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.c
>> +++ b/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.c
>> @@ -2320,7 +2320,6 @@ rs6000_debug_reg_global (void)
>> "\n"
>> "d reg_class = %s\n"
>> "f reg_class = %s\n"
>> - "v reg_class = %s\n"
>> "wa reg_class = %s\n"
>> "we reg_class = %s\n"
>> "wr reg_class = %s\n"
>> @@ -2329,7 +2328,6 @@ rs6000_debug_reg_global (void)
>> "\n",
>> reg_class_names[rs6000_constraints[RS6000_CONSTRAINT_d]],
>> reg_class_names[rs6000_constraints[RS6000_CONSTRAINT_f]],
>> - reg_class_names[rs6000_constraints[RS6000_CONSTRAINT_v]],
>> reg_class_names[rs6000_constraints[RS6000_CONSTRAINT_wa]],
>> reg_class_names[rs6000_constraints[RS6000_CONSTRAINT_we]],
>> reg_class_names[rs6000_constraints[RS6000_CONSTRAINT_wr]],
>> @@ -2984,11 +2982,6 @@ rs6000_init_hard_regno_mode_ok (bool global_init_p)
>> if (TARGET_VSX)
>> rs6000_constraints[RS6000_CONSTRAINT_wa] = VSX_REGS;
>>
>> - /* Add conditional constraints based on various options, to allow us to
>> - collapse multiple insn patterns. */
>> - if (TARGET_ALTIVEC)
>> - rs6000_constraints[RS6000_CONSTRAINT_v] = ALTIVEC_REGS;
>> -
>> if (TARGET_POWERPC64)
>> {
>> rs6000_constraints[RS6000_CONSTRAINT_wr] = GENERAL_REGS;
>> diff --git a/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.h b/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.h
>> index 4d2f88d4218..48323b80eee 100644
>> --- a/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.h
>> +++ b/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.h
>> @@ -1237,7 +1237,6 @@ extern enum reg_class
>> rs6000_regno_regclass[FIRST_PSEUDO_REGISTER];
>> enum r6000_reg_class_enum {
>> RS6000_CONSTRAINT_d, /* fpr registers for double values */
>> RS6000_CONSTRAINT_f, /* fpr registers for single values */
>> - RS6000_CONSTRAINT_v, /* Altivec registers */
>> RS6000_CONSTRAINT_wa, /* Any VSX register */
>> RS6000_CONSTRAINT_we, /* VSX register if ISA 3.0 vector. */
>> RS6000_CONSTRAINT_wr, /* GPR register if 64-bit */
>
> I would prefer that we not make gratuitous changes to this code, but
> maybe Segher has a different opinion.
>
Thanks David for the comments!
Hi Segher, what's your preference on this?
BR,
Kewen
