On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 11:58 AM, Zhenqiang Chen wrote:
> Hi,
>
> The patch fixes the gcc.target/i386/pr49095.c FAIL in PR61225. The
> test case tends to check a peephole2 optimization, which optimizes the
> following sequence
>
> 2: bx:SI=ax:SI
> 25: ax:SI=[bx:SI]
> 7: {ax:SI=ax:SI-0x1;clobber flags:CC;}
> 8: [bx:SI]=ax:SI
> 9: flags:CCZ=cmp(ax:SI,0)
> to
> 2: bx:SI=ax:SI
> 41: {flags:CCZ=cmp([bx:SI]-0x1,0);[bx:SI]=[bx:SI]-0x1;}
>
> The enhanced shrink-wrapping, which calls copyprop_hardreg_forward
> changes the INSN 25 to
>
> 25: ax:SI=[ax:SI]
>
> Then peephole2 can not optimize it since two memory_operands look like
> different.
>
> To fix it, the patch adds another peephole2 rule to read one more
> insn. From the register copy, it knows the address is the same.
That is one complex peephole2 to deal with a transformation like this.
It seems to be like it's a too specific solution for a bigger problem.
Could you please try one of the following solutions instead:
1. Track register values for peephole2 and try different alternatives
based on known register equivalences? E.g. in your example, perhaps
there is already a REG_EQUAL/REG_EQUIV note available on insn 25 after
copyprop_hardreg_forward, to annotate that [ax:SI] is equivalent to
[bx:SI] at that point (or if that information is not available, it is
not very difficult to make it available). Then you could try applying
peephole2 on the original pattern but also on patterns modified with
the known equivalences (i.e. try peephole2 on multiple equivalent
patterns for the same insn). This may expose other peephole2
opportunities, not just the specific one your patch addresses.
2. Avoid copy-prop'ing ax:SI into [bx:SI] to begin with. At insn 7,
both ax:SI and bx:SI are live, so insn 2 is not dead (i.e. cannot be
eliminated) and there is no benefit in this transformation. It only
hides (or at least makes it harder to see) that [ax:SI] in insn 25 is
the same memory reference as [bx:SI] in insn 8. So perhaps the copy
propagation should simply not be done unless it turns at least one
instruction into dead code.
Any reason why this transformation isn't done much earlier, e.g. in combine?
Ciao!
Steven
