On Wed, Jun 17, 2026 at 12:21 PM Ciprian Arbone <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Wed, 17 Jun 2026 at 11:50, Richard Biener <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > On Wed, Jun 17, 2026 at 10:48 AM Ciprian Arbone <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, 17 Jun 2026 at 11:36, Richard Biener <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jun 17, 2026 at 10:21 AM Ciprian Arbone > > > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, 16 Jun 2026 at 16:48, Richard Biener > > > > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Jun 12, 2026 at 3:31 PM Ciprian Arbone via Gcc > > > > > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hello, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We recently enabled LDMIA/STMIA instructions for Thumb-1 > > > > > > > (Cortex-M0+) by > > > > > > > modifying ARM_AUTOINC_VALID_FOR_MODE_P to allow auto-increment > > > > > > > addressing > > > > > > > for THUMB1 targets. However, we've discovered that IVOPTs > > > > > > > generates > > > > > > > suboptimal code for simple loops due to incorrect addressing mode > > > > > > > selection. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Consider this test case: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > void test(int *a, int *b, int size) > > > > > > > { > > > > > > > for (int i = 0; i < size; i++) > > > > > > > { > > > > > > > a[i] = b[i] * a[i]; > > > > > > > } > > > > > > > } > > > > > > > > > > > > > > GCC currently generates: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ldmia r0!, {r4} > > > > > > > ldmia r1!, {r6} > > > > > > > subs r5, r0, #4 > > > > > > > ... > > > > > > > str r4, [r5, #0] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The issue occurs because IVOPTs selects a candidate with the > > > > > > > lowest cost that > > > > > > > has the following structure: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Candidate xxx: > > > > > > > Incr POS: after use 0 > > > > > > > IV struct: > > > > > > > Type: unsigned int > > > > > > > Base: (unsigned int) a_13(D) > > > > > > > Step: 4 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This results in the following loop structure: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > loop-preheader: > > > > > > > r0 = a > > > > > > > jump loop-exiting > > > > > > > > > > > > > > loop-header: > > > > > > > load-from [r0] > > > > > > > increment r0 > > > > > > > store-to [r0, #-4] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > loop-exiting: > > > > > > > jump loop-header > > > > > > > > > > > > > > **Issue 1:** IVOPTs recognizes both patterns as valid > > > > > > > post-increment with > > > > > > > offset zero: > > > > > > > - "load-from [r0]; increment r0" → recognized as post-inc from > > > > > > > offset 0 > > > > > > > - "increment r0; store-to [r0, #-4]" → also recognized as > > > > > > > post-inc from > > > > > > > offset 0 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The code in tree-ssa-loop-ivopts.cc:get_address_cost() applies > > > > > > > the adjustment: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > if (stmt_after_increment (data->current_loop, cand, > > > > > > > use->stmt)) > > > > > > > ainc_offset += ainc_step; > > > > > > > cost = get_address_cost_ainc (ainc_step, ainc_offset, > > > > > > > addr_mode, mem_mode, as, speed); > > > > > > > > > > > > > > However, Thumb-1 does not support negative immediate offsets in > > > > > > > addressing > > > > > > > modes. The pattern "increment r0; store-to [r0, #-4]" can never > > > > > > > be realized > > > > > > > as a post-increment store on Thumb-1, yet IVOPTs assigns it a low > > > > > > > cost. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > **Question 1:** Should get_address_cost() verify that an > > > > > > > addressing mode is > > > > > > > actually valid on the target before assigning auto-increment > > > > > > > cost? Currently, > > > > > > > it appears to assume validity without checking target constraints. > > > > > > > > > > > > It should end up calling the legitimize_address_p target hook to > > > > > > verify > > > > > > validity. > > > > > > > > > > The legitimize_address_p target hook is invoked, but relatively > > > > > late—during the GIMPLE-to-RTL conversion. > > > > > At that point, after ivopts, the GIMPLE already contains code that may > > > > > not be optimal. > > > > > > > > IVOPTs checks valid_mem_ref_p which calls memory_address_addr_space_p > > > > with artificially generated RTL and that calls legitimate_address_p. > > > > > > Yes, it does: but only if get_address_cost_ainc returns infinite_cost, > > > meaning that cand and use > > > cannot be paired to form an auto-modifying address expression. > > > > I don't quite understand, but ainc forming does not check validity that's > > what needs to be fixed. > > > > My concern is specifically about the cost model in ivopts. In a loop like: > > for (;;) > a[i] = a[i] * <expr>; > > ivopts may consider alternatives such as: > > // r0 = a > load-from [r0, #0] > add r0, #4 > store-to [r0, #-4] > > and: > > // r0 = a > load-from [r0, #0] > store-to [r0, #0] > add r0, #4 > > These appear to be treated as having equal cost. However, in the first > case, performing the increment after the load can lead to an invalid > addressing mode for the store ([r0, #-4]), which then has to be fixed > up later by splitting it into multiple instructions. In practice, this > makes the first alternative more expensive.
As said, IVOPTs is supposed to see that it's using a -4 constant offset and reject that if this is not valid. If that doesn't work for whatever reason then that's a bug. Richard. > > > > > > > > > > > Richard. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _24 = (void *) ivtmp.15_20; > > > > > _6 = MEM[(int *)_24]; > > > > > ivtmp.15_21 = ivtmp.15_20 + 4; > > > > > > > > > > . . . > > > > > > > > > > _25 = (void *) ivtmp.15_21; > > > > > MEM[(int *)_25 + 4294967292 * 1] = _7; <------ > > > > > > > > > > Would it make sense to check whether the addressing mode is valid at > > > > > this point > > > > > (https://github.com/gcc-mirror/gcc/blob/master/gcc/tree-ssa-loop-ivopts.cc#L4732), > > > > > similar to the validation performed later > > > > > (https://github.com/gcc-mirror/gcc/blob/master/gcc/tree-ssa-loop-ivopts.cc#L4753)? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > **Issue 2:** IVOPTs also assigns low cost to another candidate: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Candidate yyy: > > > > > > > Incr POS: before exit test > > > > > > > IV struct: > > > > > > > Type: unsigned int > > > > > > > Base: (unsigned int) a_13(D) > > > > > > > Step: 4 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This produces: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > loop-preheader: > > > > > > > r0 = &a[0] > > > > > > > jump loop-exiting > > > > > > > > > > > > > > loop-header: > > > > > > > load-from [r0, #-4] > > > > > > > store-to [r0] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > loop-exiting: > > > > > > > increment r0 > > > > > > > jump loop-header > > > > > > > > > > > > > > IVOPTs considers that the increment in the loop-exiting block can > > > > > > > be paired > > > > > > > with "load-from [r0, #-4]" in the loop-header block, despite them > > > > > > > being in > > > > > > > different basic blocks. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > **Question 2:** Should get_address_cost() verify that the > > > > > > > candidate increment > > > > > > > and use->stmt are in the same basic block when cand->pos == > > > > > > > IP_NORMAL? > > > > > > > Cross-block pairing seems problematic for post-increment > > > > > > > addressing mode > > > > > > > costing. > > > > > > > > > > > > If the pairing is wrong it should be fixed, where's that pairing > > > > > > done? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The pairing takes place at this point > > > > > (https://github.com/gcc-mirror/gcc/blob/master/gcc/tree-ssa-loop-ivopts.cc#L4739), > > > > > where the candidate (the `increment r0` statement from the > > > > > loop‑exiting basic block) is combined with the use > > > > > (the `load-from [r0, #-4]` statement from the loop‑header basic > > > > > block), resulting in can_autoinc being set to true. > > > > > > > > > > loop-header: > > > > > load-from [r0, #-4] > > > > > store-to [r0] > > > > > > > > > > loop-exiting: > > > > > increment r0 > > > > > bcc loop-header > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Both issues suggest that IVOPTs may need additional validation to > > > > > > > ensure: > > > > > > > 1. The selected addressing mode is actually supported by the > > > > > > > target > > > > > > > 2. The increment and memory operation are properly co-located for > > > > > > > IP_NORMAL > > > > > > > candidates > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > > > > Ciprian Arbone
