On Tue, Jan 5, 2016 at 8:20 PM, H.J. Lu <hjl.to...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 5, 2016 at 11:14 AM, Uros Bizjak <ubiz...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, Jan 5, 2016 at 7:58 PM, H.J. Lu <hjl.to...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jan 5, 2016 at 4:32 AM, H.J. Lu <hjl.to...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Tue, Jan 5, 2016 at 12:11 AM, Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, Jan 04, 2016 at 03:25:48PM -0800, H.J. Lu wrote:
>>>>>> LRA is fine. I should use
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (define_memory_constraint "Bm"
>>>>>> "@internal Vector memory operand."
>>>>>> (match_operand 0 "vector_memory_operand"))
>>>>>>
>>>>>> instead of
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (define_constraint "Bm"
>>>>>> "@internal Vector memory operand."
>>>>>> (match_operand 0 "vector_memory_operand"))
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't think so. At least the documentation says that
>>>>> define_memory_constraint is for MEM constraints where if they are not
>>>>> satisfied they can be made to satisfy by forcing the address into a
>>>>> register. But that is not the case here, if a MEM is misaligned, no
>>>>> equivalent changes to the XEXP (mem, 0) will make it aligned.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You are right and *mov<mode>_internal must use the 'm' constraint
>>>> so that LRA won't keep generating the same reload for
>>>>
>>>> (insn 353 322 323 8 (set (reg:V4SF 192)
>>>> (reg:V4SF 201 [192])) 1226 {*movv4sf_internal}
>>>> (nil))
>>>>
>>>> until
>>>>
>>>> x.i: In function \u2018foo\u2019:
>>>> x.i:29:1: internal compiler error: Max. number of generated reload
>>>> insns per insn is achieved (90)
>>>>
>>>> }
>>>> ^
>>>>
>>>> 0xc0d635 lra_constraints(bool)
>>>> /export/gnu/import/git/sources/gcc/gcc/lra-constraints.c:4336
>>>> 0xbf9854 lra(_IO_FILE*)
>>>> /export/gnu/import/git/sources/gcc/gcc/lra.c:2277
>>>> 0xba6489 do_reload
>>>> /export/gnu/import/git/sources/gcc/gcc/ira.c:5385
>>>> 0xba683c execute
>>>> /export/gnu/import/git/sources/gcc/gcc/ira.c:5556
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Here are the updated patches. I didn't change SSE
>>> *mov<mode>_internal. Tested on x86-64. OK for
>>> trunk?
>>
>> It is hard to determine the changed patterns - can you confirm that
>> only patterns where ssememalign=0 are changed?
>>
>> Uros.
>
> My patches only change SSE patterns without ssememalign
> attribute, which defaults to
>
> (define_attr "ssememalign" "" (const_int 0))
The patch is OK for mainline.
(subst.md changes can IMO be considered obvious.)
Thanks,
Uros.
