On January 2, 2016 11:32:33 AM GMT+01:00, Uros Bizjak <ubiz...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Thu, Dec 31, 2015 at 4:29 PM, H.J. Lu <hjl.to...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, Dec 31, 2015 at 1:14 AM, Uros Bizjak <ubiz...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>>> On Wed, Dec 30, 2015 at 9:53 PM, H.J. Lu <hjl.to...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>>>> SSE vector arithmetic and logic instructions only accept aligned
>memory
>>>> operand. This patch adds vector_memory_operand and "Bm" constraint
>for
>>>> aligned SSE memory operand. They are applied to SSE any_logic
>patterns.
>>>>
>>>> OK for trunk and release branches if there are regressions?
>>>
>>> This patch is just papering over deeper problem, as Jakub said in
>the PR [1]:
>>>
>>> --q--
>>> GCC uses the ix86_legitimate_combined_insn target hook to disallow
>>> misaligned memory into certain SSE instructions.
>>> (subreg:V4SI (reg:TI 245 [ MEM[(const struct bitset
>&)FeatureEntry_21 + 8] ]) 0)
>>> is not misaligned memory, it is a subreg of a pseudo register, so it
>is fine.
>>> If the replacement of the pseudo register with memory happens in
>some
>>> other pass, then it probably either should use the
>>> legitimate_combined_insn target hook or some other one. I think we
>>> have already a PR where that happens during live range shrinking.
>>> --/q--
>>>
>>> Please figure out where memory replacement happens. There are
>several
>>> other SSE insns (please grep the .md for "ssememalign" attribute)
>that
>>> are affected by this problem, so fixing a couple of patterns won't
>>> solve the problem completely.
>>
>> LRA turns
>>
>> insn 64 63 108 6 (set (reg:V4SI 148 [ vect__28.85 ])
>> (xor:V4SI (reg:V4SI 149)
>> (subreg:V4SI (reg:TI 147 [ MEM[(const struct bitset
>> &)FeatureEntry_2(D)] ]) 0))) foo.ii:26 3454 {*xorv4si3}
>> (expr_list:REG_DEAD (reg:V4SI 149)
>> (expr_list:REG_DEAD (reg:TI 147 [ MEM[(const struct bitset
>> &)FeatureEntry_2(D)] ])
>> (expr_list:REG_EQUIV (mem/c:V4SI (plus:DI (reg/f:DI 20
>frame)
>> (const_int -16 [0xfffffffffffffff0])) [3
>> MEM[(unsigned int *)&D.2851]+0 S16 A128])
>> (nil)))))
>>
>> into
>>
>> (insn 64 63 108 6 (set (reg:V4SI 21 xmm0 [orig:148 vect__28.85 ]
>[148])
>> (xor:V4SI (reg:V4SI 21 xmm0 [149])
>> (mem:V4SI (reg/v/f:DI 4 si [orig:117 FeatureEntry ]
>[117])
>> [6 MEM[(const struct bitset &)FeatureEntry_2(D)]+0 S16 A32])))
>> foo.ii:26 3454 {*xorv4si3}
>> (expr_list:REG_EQUIV (mem/c:V4SI (plus:DI (reg/f:DI 20 frame)
>> (const_int -16 [0xfffffffffffffff0])) [3
>MEM[(unsigned
>> int *)&D.2851]+0 S16 A128])
>> (nil)))
>>
>> since
>>
>> (mem:V4SI (reg/v/f:DI 4 si [orig:117 FeatureEntry ] [117]) [6
>> MEM[(const struct bitset &)FeatureEntry_2(D)]+0 S16 A32])))
>>
>> satisfies the 'm" constraint. I don't think LRA should call
>> ix86_legitimate_combined_insn to validate to validate constraints on
>> an instruction.
>
>Hm...
>
>if LRA desn't assume that generic "m" constraint implies at least
>natural alignment of propageted operand, then your patch is the way to
>go.
I don't think it even considers alignment. Archs where alignment validity
depends on the actual instruction should model this with proper constraints.
But in this case, *every* SSE vector memory constraint should be
>changed to Bm.
I'd say so ...
>
>Let's ask Vladimir for details.
>
>Uros.
