On Sat, May 28, 2022 at 11:37 AM Jeff Law via Gcc-patches
<gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 5/26/2022 2:43 PM, H.J. Lu via Gcc-patches wrote:
> > On Thu, May 26, 2022 at 04:14:17PM +0100, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> >> "H.J. Lu" <hjl.to...@gmail.com> writes:
> >>> On Wed, May 25, 2022 at 12:30 AM Richard Sandiford
> >>> <richard.sandif...@arm.com> wrote:
> >>>> "H.J. Lu via Gcc-patches" <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org> writes:
> >>>>> On Mon, May 23, 2022 at 12:38:06PM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> >>>>>> On Sat, May 21, 2022 at 5:02 AM H.J. Lu via Gcc-patches
> >>>>>> <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
> >>>>>>> When recording store for RTL dead store elimination, check if the
> >>>>>>> source
> >>>>>>> register is set only once to a constant. If yes, record the constant
> >>>>>>> as the store source. It eliminates unrolled zero stores after memset > >>>>>>> 0
> >>>>>>> in a loop where a vector register is used as the zero store source.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> gcc/
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> PR rtl-optimization/105638
> >>>>>>> * dse.cc (record_store): Use the constant source if the
> >>>>>>> source
> >>>>>>> register is set only once.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> gcc/testsuite/
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> PR rtl-optimization/105638
> >>>>>>> * g++.target/i386/pr105638.C: New test.
> >>>>>>> ---
> >>>>>>> gcc/dse.cc | 19 ++++++++++
> >>>>>>> gcc/testsuite/g++.target/i386/pr105638.C | 44
> >>>>>>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >>>>>>> 2 files changed, 63 insertions(+)
> >>>>>>> create mode 100644 gcc/testsuite/g++.target/i386/pr105638.C
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> diff --git a/gcc/dse.cc b/gcc/dse.cc
> >>>>>>> index 30c11cee034..0433dd3d846 100644
> >>>>>>> --- a/gcc/dse.cc
> >>>>>>> +++ b/gcc/dse.cc
> >>>>>>> @@ -1508,6 +1508,25 @@ record_store (rtx body, bb_info_t bb_info)
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> if (tem && CONSTANT_P (tem))
> >>>>>>> const_rhs = tem;
> >>>>>>> + else
> >>>>>>> + {
> >>>>>>> + /* If RHS is set only once to a constant, set CONST_RHS
> >>>>>>> + to the constant. */
> >>>>>>> + df_ref def = DF_REG_DEF_CHAIN (REGNO (rhs));
> >>>>>>> + if (def != nullptr
> >>>>>>> + && !DF_REF_IS_ARTIFICIAL (def)
> >>>>>>> + && !DF_REF_NEXT_REG (def))
> >>>>>>> + {
> >>>>>>> + rtx_insn *def_insn = DF_REF_INSN (def);
> >>>>>>> + rtx def_body = PATTERN (def_insn);
> >>>>>>> + if (GET_CODE (def_body) == SET)
> >>>>>>> + {
> >>>>>>> + rtx def_src = SET_SRC (def_body);
> >>>>>>> + if (CONSTANT_P (def_src))
> >>>>>>> + const_rhs = def_src;
> >>>>>> doesn't DSE have its own tracking of stored values? Shouldn't we
> >>>>> It tracks stored values only within the basic block. When RTL loop
> >>>>> invariant motion hoists a constant initialization out of the loop into
> >>>>> a separate basic block, the constant store value becomes unknown
> >>>>> within the original basic block.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> improve _that_ if it is not enough? I also wonder if you need to
> >>>>> My patch extends DSE stored value tracking to include the constant which
> >>>>> is set only once in another basic block.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> verify the SET isn't partial?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> Here is the v2 patch to check that the constant is set by a non-partial
> >>>>> unconditional load.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> OK for master?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Thanks.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> H.J.
> >>>>> ---
> >>>>> RTL DSE tracks redundant constant stores within a basic block. When RTL
> >>>>> loop invariant motion hoists a constant initialization out of the loop
> >>>>> into a separate basic block, the constant store value becomes unknown
> >>>>> within the original basic block. When recording store for RTL DSE,
> >>>>> check
> >>>>> if the source register is set only once to a constant by a non-partial
> >>>>> unconditional load. If yes, record the constant as the constant store
> >>>>> source. It eliminates unrolled zero stores after memset 0 in a loop
> >>>>> where a vector register is used as the zero store source.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> gcc/
> >>>>>
> >>>>> PR rtl-optimization/105638
> >>>>> * dse.cc (record_store): Use the constant source if the source
> >>>>> register is set only once.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> gcc/testsuite/
> >>>>>
> >>>>> PR rtl-optimization/105638
> >>>>> * g++.target/i386/pr105638.C: New test.
> >>>>> ---
> >>>>> gcc/dse.cc | 22 ++++++++++++
> >>>>> gcc/testsuite/g++.target/i386/pr105638.C | 44 ++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >>>>> 2 files changed, 66 insertions(+)
> >>>>> create mode 100644 gcc/testsuite/g++.target/i386/pr105638.C
> >>>>>
> >>>>> diff --git a/gcc/dse.cc b/gcc/dse.cc
> >>>>> index 30c11cee034..af8e88dac32 100644
> >>>>> --- a/gcc/dse.cc
> >>>>> +++ b/gcc/dse.cc
> >>>>> @@ -1508,6 +1508,28 @@ record_store (rtx body, bb_info_t bb_info)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> if (tem && CONSTANT_P (tem))
> >>>>> const_rhs = tem;
> >>>>> + else
> >>>>> + {
> >>>>> + /* If RHS is set only once to a constant, set CONST_RHS
> >>>>> + to the constant. */
> >>>>> + df_ref def = DF_REG_DEF_CHAIN (REGNO (rhs));
> >>>>> + if (def != nullptr
> >>>>> + && !DF_REF_IS_ARTIFICIAL (def)
> >>>>> + && !(DF_REF_FLAGS (def)
> >>>>> + & (DF_REF_PARTIAL | DF_REF_CONDITIONAL))
> >>>>> + && !DF_REF_NEXT_REG (def))
> >>>> Can we introduce a helper for this? There are already similar tests
> >>>> in ira and loop-iv, and it seems a bit too complex to have to open-code
> >>>> each time.
> >>> I can use find_single_def_src in loop-iv.cc:
> >>>
> >>> /* If REGNO has a single definition, return its known value, otherwise
> >>> return
> >>> null. */
> >>>
> >>> rtx
> >>> find_single_def_src (unsigned int regno)
> >> Yeah, reusing that sounds good. Perhaps we should move it into df-core.cc,
> >> alongside the df_reg_used group of functions.
> >>
> >> I think the mode check in your original patch should be kept though,
> >> so how about we change the parameter to an rtx reg and use rtx_equal in:
> >>
> >> rtx set = single_set (DF_REF_INSN (adef));
> >> if (set == NULL || !REG_P (SET_DEST (set))
> >> || REGNO (SET_DEST (set)) != regno)
> >> return NULL_RTX;
> > Fixed.
> >
> >> rather than the existing !REG_P and REGNO checks. We should also add:
> >>
> >>> and do
> >>>
> >>> /* If RHS is set only once to a constant, set CONST_RHS
> >>> to the constant. */
> >>> rtx def_src = find_single_def_src (REGNO (rhs));
> >>> if (def_src != nullptr && CONSTANT_P (def_src))
> >>> {
> >>> df_ref def = DF_REG_DEF_CHAIN (REGNO (rhs));
> >>> if (!(DF_REF_FLAGS (def)
> >>> & (DF_REF_PARTIAL | DF_REF_CONDITIONAL)))
> >> …this check to the function, since it's needed for correctness even
> >> in the loop-iv.cc use.
> > Fixed.
> >
> >> Thanks,
> >> Richard
> > Here is the v3 patch. OK for master?
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> > H.J.
> > ---
> > RTL DSE tracks redundant constant stores within a basic block. When RTL
> > loop invariant motion hoists a constant initialization out of the loop
> > into a separate basic block, the constant store value becomes unknown
> > within the original basic block. When recording store for RTL DSE, check
> > if the source register is set only once to a constant by a non-partial
> > unconditional load. If yes, record the constant as the constant store
> > source. It eliminates unrolled zero stores after memset 0 in a loop
> > where a vector register is used as the zero store source.
> >
> > Extract find_single_def_src from loop-iv.cc and move it to df-core.cc:
> >
> > 1. Rename to df_find_single_def_src.
> > 2. Change the argument to rtx and use rtx_equal_p.
> > 3. Return null for partial or conditional defs.
> >
> > gcc/
> >
> > PR rtl-optimization/105638
> > * df-core.cc (df_find_single_def_sr): Moved and renamed from
> > find_single_def_src in loop-iv.cc. Change the argument to rtx
> > and use rtx_equal_p. Return null for partial or conditional
> > defs.
> > * df.h (df_find_single_def_src): New prototype.
> > * dse.cc (record_store): Use the constant source if the source
> > register is set only once.
> > * loop-iv.cc (find_single_def_src): Moved to df-core.cc.
> > (replace_single_def_regs): Replace find_single_def_src with
> > df_find_single_def_src.
> >
> > gcc/testsuite/
> >
> > PR rtl-optimization/105638
> > * g++.target/i386/pr105638.C: New test.
> Avoiding REG_EQUAL and only handling REG_EQUIV notes would be better
> here. REG_EQUIV indicates the destination could be replaced with the
> source of the note at any point and semantically the code would still be
> valid. REG_EQUAL doesn't give us that guarantee.
>
> To allow REG_EQUAL you have to check that the block with the note
> dominates the use.
When a use only has one non-conditional def which doesn't dominate
the use, isn't its behavior undefined?
--
H.J.
