Hi Uros,
> From: Uros Bizjak <ubiz...@gmail.com>
> Sent: 01 November 2023 10:05
> Subject: Re: [x86_64 PATCH] PR target/110551: Tweak mulx register allocation
> using peephole2.
>
> On Mon, Oct 30, 2023 at 6:27 PM Roger Sayle <ro...@nextmovesoftware.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > This patch is a follow-up to my previous PR target/110551 patch, this
> > time to address the additional move after mulx, seen on TARGET_BMI2
> > architectures (such as -march=haswell). The complication here is that
> > the flexible multiple-set mulx instruction is introduced into RTL
> > after reload, by split2, and therefore can't benefit from register
> > preferencing. This results in RTL like the following:
> >
> > (insn 32 31 17 2 (parallel [
> > (set (reg:DI 4 si [orig:101 r ] [101])
> > (mult:DI (reg:DI 1 dx [109])
> > (reg:DI 5 di [109])))
> > (set (reg:DI 5 di [ r+8 ])
> > (umul_highpart:DI (reg:DI 1 dx [109])
> > (reg:DI 5 di [109])))
> > ]) "pr110551-2.c":8:17 -1
> > (nil))
> >
> > (insn 17 32 9 2 (set (reg:DI 0 ax [107])
> > (reg:DI 5 di [ r+8 ])) "pr110551-2.c":9:40 90 {*movdi_internal}
> > (expr_list:REG_DEAD (reg:DI 5 di [ r+8 ])
> > (nil)))
> >
> > Here insn 32, the mulx instruction, places its results in si and di,
> > and then immediately after decides to move di to ax, with di now dead.
> > This can be trivially cleaned up by a peephole2. I've added an
> > additional constraint that the two SET_DESTs can't be the same
> > register to avoid confusing the middle-end, but this has well-defined
> > behaviour on x86_64/BMI2, encoding a umul_highpart.
> >
> > For the new test case, compiled on x86_64 with -O2 -march=haswell:
> >
> > Before:
> > mulx64: movabsq $-7046029254386353131, %rdx
> > mulx %rdi, %rsi, %rdi
> > movq %rdi, %rax
> > xorq %rsi, %rax
> > ret
> >
> > After:
> > mulx64: movabsq $-7046029254386353131, %rdx
> > mulx %rdi, %rsi, %rax
> > xorq %rsi, %rax
> > ret
> >
> > This patch has been tested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu with make bootstrap
> > and make -k check, both with and without --target_board=unix{-m32}
> > with no new failures. Ok for mainline?
>
> It looks that your previous PR110551 patch regressed -march=cascadelake [1].
> Let's fix these regressions first.
>
> [1] https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2023-October/634660.html
>
> Uros.
This patch fixes that "regression". Originally, the test case in PR110551
contained
one unnecessary mov on "default" x86_targets, but two extra movs on BMI2
targets, including -march=haswell and -march=cascadelake. The first patch
eliminated one of these MOVs, this patch eliminates the second. I'm not sure
that you can call it a regression, the added test failed when run with a
non-standard
-march setting. The good news is that test case doesn't have to be changed with
this patch applied, i.e. the correct intended behaviour is no MOVs on all
architectures.
I'll admit the timing is unusual; I had already written and was regression
testing a
patch for the BMI2 issue, when the -march=cascadelake regression tester let me
know it was required for folks that helpfully run the regression suite with non
standard settings. i.e. a long standing bug that wasn't previously tested for
by
the testsuite.
> > 2023-10-30 Roger Sayle <ro...@nextmovesoftware.com>
> >
> > gcc/ChangeLog
> > PR target/110551
> > * config/i386/i386.md (*bmi2_umul<mode><dwi>3_1): Tidy condition
> > as operands[2] with predicate register_operand must be !MEM_P.
> > (peephole2): Optimize a mulx followed by a register-to-register
> > move, to place result in the correct destination if possible.
> >
> > gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
> > PR target/110551
> > * gcc.target/i386/pr110551-2.c: New test case.
> >
Thanks again,
Roger
--
