Message ID | 20240513184932.662109-3-vineetg@rivosinc.com |
---|---|
State | New |
Headers | show |
Series | RISC-V improve stack/array access by constant mat tweak | expand |
On 5/13/24 12:49 PM, Vineet Gupta wrote: > If the constant used for stack offset can be expressed as sum of two S12 > values, the constant need not be materialized (in a reg) and instead the > two S12 bits can be added to instructions involved with frame pointer. > This avoids burning a register and more importantly can often get down > to be 2 insn vs. 3. > > The prev patches to generally avoid LUI based const materialization didn't > fix this PR and need this directed fix in funcion prologue/epilogue > expansion. > > This fix doesn't move the neddle for SPEC, at all, but it is still a > win considering gcc generates one insn fewer than llvm for the test ;-) > > gcc-13.1 release | gcc 230823 | | > | g6619b3d4c15c | This patch | clang/llvm > --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > li t0,-4096 | li t0,-4096 | addi sp,sp,-2048 | addi sp,sp,-2048 > addi t0,t0,2016 | addi t0,t0,2032 | add sp,sp,-16 | addi sp,sp,-32 > li a4,4096 | add sp,sp,t0 | add a5,sp,a0 | add a1,sp,16 > add sp,sp,t0 | addi a5,sp,-2032 | sb zero,0(a5) | add a0,a0,a1 > li a5,-4096 | add a0,a5,a0 | addi sp,sp,2032 | sb zero,0(a0) > addi a4,a4,-2032 | li t0, 4096 | addi sp,sp,32 | addi sp,sp,2032 > add a4,a4,a5 | sb zero,2032(a0) | ret | addi sp,sp,48 > addi a5,sp,16 | addi t0,t0,-2032 | | ret > add a5,a4,a5 | add sp,sp,t0 | > add a0,a5,a0 | ret | > li t0,4096 | > sd a5,8(sp) | > sb zero,2032(a0)| > addi t0,t0,-2016 | > add sp,sp,t0 | > ret | > > gcc/ChangeLog: > PR target/105733 > * config/riscv/riscv.h: New macros for with aligned offsets. > * config/riscv/riscv.cc (riscv_split_sum_of_two_s12): New > function to split a sum of two s12 values into constituents. > (riscv_expand_prologue): Handle offset being sum of two S12. > (riscv_expand_epilogue): Ditto. > * config/riscv/riscv-protos.h (riscv_split_sum_of_two_s12): New. > > gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog: > * gcc.target/riscv/pr105733.c: New Test. > * gcc.target/riscv/rvv/autovec/vls/spill-1.c: Adjust to not > expect LUI 4096. > * gcc.target/riscv/rvv/autovec/vls/spill-2.c: Ditto. > * gcc.target/riscv/rvv/autovec/vls/spill-3.c: Ditto. > * gcc.target/riscv/rvv/autovec/vls/spill-4.c: Ditto. > * gcc.target/riscv/rvv/autovec/vls/spill-5.c: Ditto. > * gcc.target/riscv/rvv/autovec/vls/spill-6.c: Ditto. > * gcc.target/riscv/rvv/autovec/vls/spill-7.c: Ditto. > > @@ -8074,14 +8111,26 @@ riscv_expand_epilogue (int style) > } > else > { > - if (!SMALL_OPERAND (adjust_offset.to_constant ())) > + HOST_WIDE_INT adj_off_value = adjust_offset.to_constant (); > + if (SMALL_OPERAND (adj_off_value)) > + { > + adjust = GEN_INT (adj_off_value); > + } > + else if (SUM_OF_TWO_S12_ALGN (adj_off_value)) > + { > + HOST_WIDE_INT base, off; > + riscv_split_sum_of_two_s12 (adj_off_value, &base, &off); > + insn = gen_add3_insn (stack_pointer_rtx, hard_frame_pointer_rtx, > + GEN_INT (base)); > + RTX_FRAME_RELATED_P (insn) = 1; > + adjust = GEN_INT (off); > + } So this was the hunk that we identified internally as causing problems with libgomp's testsuite. We never fully chased it down as this hunk didn't seem terribly important performance wise -- we just set it aside. The thing is it looked basically correct to me. So the failure was certainly unexpected, but it was consistent. So I think the question is whether or not the CI system runs the libgomp testsuite, particularly in the rv64 linux configuration. If it does, and it passes, then we're good. I'm still finding my way around the configuration, so I don't know if the CI system Edwin & Patrick have built tests libgomp or not. If it isn't run, then we'll need to do a run to test that. I'm set up here to do that if needed. I can just drop this version into our internal tree, trigger an internal CI run and see if it complains :-) If it does complain, then we know where to start investigations. Jeff
On 5/13/24 13:28, Jeff Law wrote: > > > On 5/13/24 12:49 PM, Vineet Gupta wrote: >> If the constant used for stack offset can be expressed as sum of two S12 >> values, the constant need not be materialized (in a reg) and instead the >> two S12 bits can be added to instructions involved with frame pointer. >> This avoids burning a register and more importantly can often get down >> to be 2 insn vs. 3. >> >> The prev patches to generally avoid LUI based const materialization >> didn't >> fix this PR and need this directed fix in funcion prologue/epilogue >> expansion. >> >> This fix doesn't move the neddle for SPEC, at all, but it is still a >> win considering gcc generates one insn fewer than llvm for the test ;-) >> >> gcc-13.1 release | gcc 230823 | | >> | g6619b3d4c15c | This patch | >> clang/llvm >> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> li t0,-4096 | li t0,-4096 | addi sp,sp,-2048 | addi >> sp,sp,-2048 >> addi t0,t0,2016 | addi t0,t0,2032 | add sp,sp,-16 | addi >> sp,sp,-32 >> li a4,4096 | add sp,sp,t0 | add a5,sp,a0 | add >> a1,sp,16 >> add sp,sp,t0 | addi a5,sp,-2032 | sb zero,0(a5) | add >> a0,a0,a1 >> li a5,-4096 | add a0,a5,a0 | addi sp,sp,2032 | sb >> zero,0(a0) >> addi a4,a4,-2032 | li t0, 4096 | addi sp,sp,32 | addi >> sp,sp,2032 >> add a4,a4,a5 | sb zero,2032(a0) | ret | addi >> sp,sp,48 >> addi a5,sp,16 | addi t0,t0,-2032 | | ret >> add a5,a4,a5 | add sp,sp,t0 | >> add a0,a5,a0 | ret | >> li t0,4096 | >> sd a5,8(sp) | >> sb zero,2032(a0)| >> addi t0,t0,-2016 | >> add sp,sp,t0 | >> ret | >> >> gcc/ChangeLog: >> PR target/105733 >> * config/riscv/riscv.h: New macros for with aligned offsets. >> * config/riscv/riscv.cc (riscv_split_sum_of_two_s12): New >> function to split a sum of two s12 values into constituents. >> (riscv_expand_prologue): Handle offset being sum of two S12. >> (riscv_expand_epilogue): Ditto. >> * config/riscv/riscv-protos.h (riscv_split_sum_of_two_s12): New. >> >> gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog: >> * gcc.target/riscv/pr105733.c: New Test. >> * gcc.target/riscv/rvv/autovec/vls/spill-1.c: Adjust to not >> expect LUI 4096. >> * gcc.target/riscv/rvv/autovec/vls/spill-2.c: Ditto. >> * gcc.target/riscv/rvv/autovec/vls/spill-3.c: Ditto. >> * gcc.target/riscv/rvv/autovec/vls/spill-4.c: Ditto. >> * gcc.target/riscv/rvv/autovec/vls/spill-5.c: Ditto. >> * gcc.target/riscv/rvv/autovec/vls/spill-6.c: Ditto. >> * gcc.target/riscv/rvv/autovec/vls/spill-7.c: Ditto. >> > > >> @@ -8074,14 +8111,26 @@ riscv_expand_epilogue (int style) >> } >> else >> { >> - if (!SMALL_OPERAND (adjust_offset.to_constant ())) >> + HOST_WIDE_INT adj_off_value = adjust_offset.to_constant (); >> + if (SMALL_OPERAND (adj_off_value)) >> + { >> + adjust = GEN_INT (adj_off_value); >> + } >> + else if (SUM_OF_TWO_S12_ALGN (adj_off_value)) >> + { >> + HOST_WIDE_INT base, off; >> + riscv_split_sum_of_two_s12 (adj_off_value, &base, &off); >> + insn = gen_add3_insn (stack_pointer_rtx, >> hard_frame_pointer_rtx, >> + GEN_INT (base)); >> + RTX_FRAME_RELATED_P (insn) = 1; >> + adjust = GEN_INT (off); >> + } > So this was the hunk that we identified internally as causing problems > with libgomp's testsuite. We never fully chased it down as this hunk > didn't seem terribly important performance wise -- we just set it > aside. The thing is it looked basically correct to me. So the > failure was certainly unexpected, but it was consistent. > > So I think the question is whether or not the CI system runs the > libgomp testsuite, particularly in the rv64 linux configuration. If it > does, and it passes, then we're good. I'm still finding my way around > the configuration, so I don't know if the CI system Edwin & Patrick > have built tests libgomp or not. I poked around the .sum files in pre/postcommit and we do run tests like: PASS: c-c++-common/gomp/affinity-2.c (test for errors, line 45) I'm not familar with libgomp so I don't know if that's the same libgomp tests you're referring to. Patrick > > If it isn't run, then we'll need to do a run to test that. I'm set up > here to do that if needed. I can just drop this version into our > internal tree, trigger an internal CI run and see if it complains :-) > > If it does complain, then we know where to start investigations. > > > > > Jeff >
On 5/13/24 6:54 PM, Patrick O'Neill wrote: > > On 5/13/24 13:28, Jeff Law wrote: >> >> >> On 5/13/24 12:49 PM, Vineet Gupta wrote: >>> If the constant used for stack offset can be expressed as sum of two S12 >>> values, the constant need not be materialized (in a reg) and instead the >>> two S12 bits can be added to instructions involved with frame pointer. >>> This avoids burning a register and more importantly can often get down >>> to be 2 insn vs. 3. >>> >>> The prev patches to generally avoid LUI based const materialization >>> didn't >>> fix this PR and need this directed fix in funcion prologue/epilogue >>> expansion. >>> >>> This fix doesn't move the neddle for SPEC, at all, but it is still a >>> win considering gcc generates one insn fewer than llvm for the test ;-) >>> >>> gcc-13.1 release | gcc 230823 | | >>> | g6619b3d4c15c | This patch | clang/llvm >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> li t0,-4096 | li t0,-4096 | addi sp,sp,-2048 | addi >>> sp,sp,-2048 >>> addi t0,t0,2016 | addi t0,t0,2032 | add sp,sp,-16 | addi >>> sp,sp,-32 >>> li a4,4096 | add sp,sp,t0 | add a5,sp,a0 | add >>> a1,sp,16 >>> add sp,sp,t0 | addi a5,sp,-2032 | sb zero,0(a5) | add >>> a0,a0,a1 >>> li a5,-4096 | add a0,a5,a0 | addi sp,sp,2032 | sb >>> zero,0(a0) >>> addi a4,a4,-2032 | li t0, 4096 | addi sp,sp,32 | addi >>> sp,sp,2032 >>> add a4,a4,a5 | sb zero,2032(a0) | ret | addi >>> sp,sp,48 >>> addi a5,sp,16 | addi t0,t0,-2032 | | ret >>> add a5,a4,a5 | add sp,sp,t0 | >>> add a0,a5,a0 | ret | >>> li t0,4096 | >>> sd a5,8(sp) | >>> sb zero,2032(a0)| >>> addi t0,t0,-2016 | >>> add sp,sp,t0 | >>> ret | >>> >>> gcc/ChangeLog: >>> PR target/105733 >>> * config/riscv/riscv.h: New macros for with aligned offsets. >>> * config/riscv/riscv.cc (riscv_split_sum_of_two_s12): New >>> function to split a sum of two s12 values into constituents. >>> (riscv_expand_prologue): Handle offset being sum of two S12. >>> (riscv_expand_epilogue): Ditto. >>> * config/riscv/riscv-protos.h (riscv_split_sum_of_two_s12): New. >>> >>> gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog: >>> * gcc.target/riscv/pr105733.c: New Test. >>> * gcc.target/riscv/rvv/autovec/vls/spill-1.c: Adjust to not >>> expect LUI 4096. >>> * gcc.target/riscv/rvv/autovec/vls/spill-2.c: Ditto. >>> * gcc.target/riscv/rvv/autovec/vls/spill-3.c: Ditto. >>> * gcc.target/riscv/rvv/autovec/vls/spill-4.c: Ditto. >>> * gcc.target/riscv/rvv/autovec/vls/spill-5.c: Ditto. >>> * gcc.target/riscv/rvv/autovec/vls/spill-6.c: Ditto. >>> * gcc.target/riscv/rvv/autovec/vls/spill-7.c: Ditto. >>> >> >> >>> @@ -8074,14 +8111,26 @@ riscv_expand_epilogue (int style) >>> } >>> else >>> { >>> - if (!SMALL_OPERAND (adjust_offset.to_constant ())) >>> + HOST_WIDE_INT adj_off_value = adjust_offset.to_constant (); >>> + if (SMALL_OPERAND (adj_off_value)) >>> + { >>> + adjust = GEN_INT (adj_off_value); >>> + } >>> + else if (SUM_OF_TWO_S12_ALGN (adj_off_value)) >>> + { >>> + HOST_WIDE_INT base, off; >>> + riscv_split_sum_of_two_s12 (adj_off_value, &base, &off); >>> + insn = gen_add3_insn (stack_pointer_rtx, >>> hard_frame_pointer_rtx, >>> + GEN_INT (base)); >>> + RTX_FRAME_RELATED_P (insn) = 1; >>> + adjust = GEN_INT (off); >>> + } >> So this was the hunk that we identified internally as causing problems >> with libgomp's testsuite. We never fully chased it down as this hunk >> didn't seem terribly important performance wise -- we just set it >> aside. The thing is it looked basically correct to me. So the >> failure was certainly unexpected, but it was consistent. >> >> So I think the question is whether or not the CI system runs the >> libgomp testsuite, particularly in the rv64 linux configuration. If it >> does, and it passes, then we're good. I'm still finding my way around >> the configuration, so I don't know if the CI system Edwin & Patrick >> have built tests libgomp or not. > > I poked around the .sum files in pre/postcommit and we do run tests like: > > PASS: c-c++-common/gomp/affinity-2.c (test for errors, line 45) I was able to find the summary info: > Tests that now fail, but worked before (15 tests): > libgomp: libgomp.fortran/simd7.f90 -O0 execution test > libgomp: libgomp.fortran/task2.f90 -O0 execution test > libgomp: libgomp.fortran/vla2.f90 -O0 execution test > libgomp: libgomp.fortran/vla3.f90 -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer -funroll-loops -fpeel-loops -ftracer -finline-functions execution test > libgomp: libgomp.fortran/vla3.f90 -O3 -g execution test > libgomp: libgomp.fortran/vla4.f90 -O1 execution test > libgomp: libgomp.fortran/vla4.f90 -O2 execution test > libgomp: libgomp.fortran/vla4.f90 -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer -funroll-loops -fpeel-loops -ftracer -finline-functions execution test > libgomp: libgomp.fortran/vla4.f90 -O3 -g execution test > libgomp: libgomp.fortran/vla4.f90 -Os execution test > libgomp: libgomp.fortran/vla5.f90 -O1 execution test > libgomp: libgomp.fortran/vla5.f90 -O2 execution test > libgomp: libgomp.fortran/vla5.f90 -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer -funroll-loops -fpeel-loops -ftracer -finline-functions execution test > libgomp: libgomp.fortran/vla5.f90 -O3 -g execution test > libgomp: libgomp.fortran/vla5.f90 -Os execution test So if you could check on those, it'd be appreciated. Jeff
On 5/13/24 20:36, Jeff Law wrote: > > > On 5/13/24 6:54 PM, Patrick O'Neill wrote: >> >> On 5/13/24 13:28, Jeff Law wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 5/13/24 12:49 PM, Vineet Gupta wrote: >>>> If the constant used for stack offset can be expressed as sum of >>>> two S12 >>>> values, the constant need not be materialized (in a reg) and >>>> instead the >>>> two S12 bits can be added to instructions involved with frame pointer. >>>> This avoids burning a register and more importantly can often get down >>>> to be 2 insn vs. 3. >>>> >>>> The prev patches to generally avoid LUI based const materialization >>>> didn't >>>> fix this PR and need this directed fix in funcion prologue/epilogue >>>> expansion. >>>> >>>> This fix doesn't move the neddle for SPEC, at all, but it is still a >>>> win considering gcc generates one insn fewer than llvm for the test >>>> ;-) >>>> >>>> gcc-13.1 release | gcc 230823 | | >>>> | g6619b3d4c15c | This patch | >>>> clang/llvm >>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> >>>> li t0,-4096 | li t0,-4096 | addi sp,sp,-2048 | >>>> addi sp,sp,-2048 >>>> addi t0,t0,2016 | addi t0,t0,2032 | add sp,sp,-16 | addi >>>> sp,sp,-32 >>>> li a4,4096 | add sp,sp,t0 | add a5,sp,a0 | add >>>> a1,sp,16 >>>> add sp,sp,t0 | addi a5,sp,-2032 | sb zero,0(a5) | add >>>> a0,a0,a1 >>>> li a5,-4096 | add a0,a5,a0 | addi sp,sp,2032 | sb >>>> zero,0(a0) >>>> addi a4,a4,-2032 | li t0, 4096 | addi sp,sp,32 | >>>> addi sp,sp,2032 >>>> add a4,a4,a5 | sb zero,2032(a0) | ret | >>>> addi sp,sp,48 >>>> addi a5,sp,16 | addi t0,t0,-2032 | | ret >>>> add a5,a4,a5 | add sp,sp,t0 | >>>> add a0,a5,a0 | ret | >>>> li t0,4096 | >>>> sd a5,8(sp) | >>>> sb zero,2032(a0)| >>>> addi t0,t0,-2016 | >>>> add sp,sp,t0 | >>>> ret | >>>> >>>> gcc/ChangeLog: >>>> PR target/105733 >>>> * config/riscv/riscv.h: New macros for with aligned offsets. >>>> * config/riscv/riscv.cc (riscv_split_sum_of_two_s12): New >>>> function to split a sum of two s12 values into constituents. >>>> (riscv_expand_prologue): Handle offset being sum of two S12. >>>> (riscv_expand_epilogue): Ditto. >>>> * config/riscv/riscv-protos.h (riscv_split_sum_of_two_s12): New. >>>> >>>> gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog: >>>> * gcc.target/riscv/pr105733.c: New Test. >>>> * gcc.target/riscv/rvv/autovec/vls/spill-1.c: Adjust to not >>>> expect LUI 4096. >>>> * gcc.target/riscv/rvv/autovec/vls/spill-2.c: Ditto. >>>> * gcc.target/riscv/rvv/autovec/vls/spill-3.c: Ditto. >>>> * gcc.target/riscv/rvv/autovec/vls/spill-4.c: Ditto. >>>> * gcc.target/riscv/rvv/autovec/vls/spill-5.c: Ditto. >>>> * gcc.target/riscv/rvv/autovec/vls/spill-6.c: Ditto. >>>> * gcc.target/riscv/rvv/autovec/vls/spill-7.c: Ditto. >>>> >>> >>> >>>> @@ -8074,14 +8111,26 @@ riscv_expand_epilogue (int style) >>>> } >>>> else >>>> { >>>> - if (!SMALL_OPERAND (adjust_offset.to_constant ())) >>>> + HOST_WIDE_INT adj_off_value = adjust_offset.to_constant (); >>>> + if (SMALL_OPERAND (adj_off_value)) >>>> + { >>>> + adjust = GEN_INT (adj_off_value); >>>> + } >>>> + else if (SUM_OF_TWO_S12_ALGN (adj_off_value)) >>>> + { >>>> + HOST_WIDE_INT base, off; >>>> + riscv_split_sum_of_two_s12 (adj_off_value, &base, &off); >>>> + insn = gen_add3_insn (stack_pointer_rtx, >>>> hard_frame_pointer_rtx, >>>> + GEN_INT (base)); >>>> + RTX_FRAME_RELATED_P (insn) = 1; >>>> + adjust = GEN_INT (off); >>>> + } >>> So this was the hunk that we identified internally as causing >>> problems with libgomp's testsuite. We never fully chased it down as >>> this hunk didn't seem terribly important performance wise -- we just >>> set it aside. The thing is it looked basically correct to me. So >>> the failure was certainly unexpected, but it was consistent. >>> >>> So I think the question is whether or not the CI system runs the >>> libgomp testsuite, particularly in the rv64 linux configuration. If >>> it does, and it passes, then we're good. I'm still finding my way >>> around the configuration, so I don't know if the CI system Edwin & >>> Patrick have built tests libgomp or not. >> >> I poked around the .sum files in pre/postcommit and we do run tests >> like: >> >> PASS: c-c++-common/gomp/affinity-2.c (test for errors, line 45) > I was able to find the summary info: > >> Tests that now fail, but worked before (15 tests): >> libgomp: libgomp.fortran/simd7.f90 -O0 execution test >> libgomp: libgomp.fortran/task2.f90 -O0 execution test >> libgomp: libgomp.fortran/vla2.f90 -O0 execution test >> libgomp: libgomp.fortran/vla3.f90 -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer >> -funroll-loops -fpeel-loops -ftracer -finline-functions execution test >> libgomp: libgomp.fortran/vla3.f90 -O3 -g execution test >> libgomp: libgomp.fortran/vla4.f90 -O1 execution test >> libgomp: libgomp.fortran/vla4.f90 -O2 execution test >> libgomp: libgomp.fortran/vla4.f90 -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer >> -funroll-loops -fpeel-loops -ftracer -finline-functions execution test >> libgomp: libgomp.fortran/vla4.f90 -O3 -g execution test >> libgomp: libgomp.fortran/vla4.f90 -Os execution test >> libgomp: libgomp.fortran/vla5.f90 -O1 execution test >> libgomp: libgomp.fortran/vla5.f90 -O2 execution test >> libgomp: libgomp.fortran/vla5.f90 -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer >> -funroll-loops -fpeel-loops -ftracer -finline-functions execution test >> libgomp: libgomp.fortran/vla5.f90 -O3 -g execution test >> libgomp: libgomp.fortran/vla5.f90 -Os execution test > > So if you could check on those, it'd be appreciated. I checked rv64gcv linux and those do not currently run in CI. Patrick
On 5/14/24 8:51 AM, Patrick O'Neill wrote: > > On 5/13/24 20:36, Jeff Law wrote: >> >> >> On 5/13/24 6:54 PM, Patrick O'Neill wrote: >>> >>> On 5/13/24 13:28, Jeff Law wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> On 5/13/24 12:49 PM, Vineet Gupta wrote: >>>>> If the constant used for stack offset can be expressed as sum of >>>>> two S12 >>>>> values, the constant need not be materialized (in a reg) and >>>>> instead the >>>>> two S12 bits can be added to instructions involved with frame pointer. >>>>> This avoids burning a register and more importantly can often get down >>>>> to be 2 insn vs. 3. >>>>> >>>>> The prev patches to generally avoid LUI based const materialization >>>>> didn't >>>>> fix this PR and need this directed fix in funcion prologue/epilogue >>>>> expansion. >>>>> >>>>> This fix doesn't move the neddle for SPEC, at all, but it is still a >>>>> win considering gcc generates one insn fewer than llvm for the >>>>> test ;-) >>>>> >>>>> gcc-13.1 release | gcc 230823 | | >>>>> | g6619b3d4c15c | This patch | >>>>> clang/llvm >>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>> li t0,-4096 | li t0,-4096 | addi sp,sp,-2048 | >>>>> addi sp,sp,-2048 >>>>> addi t0,t0,2016 | addi t0,t0,2032 | add sp,sp,-16 | addi >>>>> sp,sp,-32 >>>>> li a4,4096 | add sp,sp,t0 | add a5,sp,a0 | add >>>>> a1,sp,16 >>>>> add sp,sp,t0 | addi a5,sp,-2032 | sb zero,0(a5) | add >>>>> a0,a0,a1 >>>>> li a5,-4096 | add a0,a5,a0 | addi sp,sp,2032 | sb >>>>> zero,0(a0) >>>>> addi a4,a4,-2032 | li t0, 4096 | addi sp,sp,32 | >>>>> addi sp,sp,2032 >>>>> add a4,a4,a5 | sb zero,2032(a0) | ret | >>>>> addi sp,sp,48 >>>>> addi a5,sp,16 | addi t0,t0,-2032 | | ret >>>>> add a5,a4,a5 | add sp,sp,t0 | >>>>> add a0,a5,a0 | ret | >>>>> li t0,4096 | >>>>> sd a5,8(sp) | >>>>> sb zero,2032(a0)| >>>>> addi t0,t0,-2016 | >>>>> add sp,sp,t0 | >>>>> ret | >>>>> >>>>> gcc/ChangeLog: >>>>> PR target/105733 >>>>> * config/riscv/riscv.h: New macros for with aligned offsets. >>>>> * config/riscv/riscv.cc (riscv_split_sum_of_two_s12): New >>>>> function to split a sum of two s12 values into constituents. >>>>> (riscv_expand_prologue): Handle offset being sum of two S12. >>>>> (riscv_expand_epilogue): Ditto. >>>>> * config/riscv/riscv-protos.h (riscv_split_sum_of_two_s12): New. >>>>> >>>>> gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog: >>>>> * gcc.target/riscv/pr105733.c: New Test. >>>>> * gcc.target/riscv/rvv/autovec/vls/spill-1.c: Adjust to not >>>>> expect LUI 4096. >>>>> * gcc.target/riscv/rvv/autovec/vls/spill-2.c: Ditto. >>>>> * gcc.target/riscv/rvv/autovec/vls/spill-3.c: Ditto. >>>>> * gcc.target/riscv/rvv/autovec/vls/spill-4.c: Ditto. >>>>> * gcc.target/riscv/rvv/autovec/vls/spill-5.c: Ditto. >>>>> * gcc.target/riscv/rvv/autovec/vls/spill-6.c: Ditto. >>>>> * gcc.target/riscv/rvv/autovec/vls/spill-7.c: Ditto. >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> @@ -8074,14 +8111,26 @@ riscv_expand_epilogue (int style) >>>>> } >>>>> else >>>>> { >>>>> - if (!SMALL_OPERAND (adjust_offset.to_constant ())) >>>>> + HOST_WIDE_INT adj_off_value = adjust_offset.to_constant (); >>>>> + if (SMALL_OPERAND (adj_off_value)) >>>>> + { >>>>> + adjust = GEN_INT (adj_off_value); >>>>> + } >>>>> + else if (SUM_OF_TWO_S12_ALGN (adj_off_value)) >>>>> + { >>>>> + HOST_WIDE_INT base, off; >>>>> + riscv_split_sum_of_two_s12 (adj_off_value, &base, &off); >>>>> + insn = gen_add3_insn (stack_pointer_rtx, >>>>> hard_frame_pointer_rtx, >>>>> + GEN_INT (base)); >>>>> + RTX_FRAME_RELATED_P (insn) = 1; >>>>> + adjust = GEN_INT (off); >>>>> + } >>>> So this was the hunk that we identified internally as causing >>>> problems with libgomp's testsuite. We never fully chased it down as >>>> this hunk didn't seem terribly important performance wise -- we just >>>> set it aside. The thing is it looked basically correct to me. So >>>> the failure was certainly unexpected, but it was consistent. >>>> >>>> So I think the question is whether or not the CI system runs the >>>> libgomp testsuite, particularly in the rv64 linux configuration. If >>>> it does, and it passes, then we're good. I'm still finding my way >>>> around the configuration, so I don't know if the CI system Edwin & >>>> Patrick have built tests libgomp or not. >>> >>> I poked around the .sum files in pre/postcommit and we do run tests >>> like: >>> >>> PASS: c-c++-common/gomp/affinity-2.c (test for errors, line 45) >> I was able to find the summary info: >> >>> Tests that now fail, but worked before (15 tests): >>> libgomp: libgomp.fortran/simd7.f90 -O0 execution test >>> libgomp: libgomp.fortran/task2.f90 -O0 execution test >>> libgomp: libgomp.fortran/vla2.f90 -O0 execution test >>> libgomp: libgomp.fortran/vla3.f90 -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer - >>> funroll-loops -fpeel-loops -ftracer -finline-functions execution test >>> libgomp: libgomp.fortran/vla3.f90 -O3 -g execution test >>> libgomp: libgomp.fortran/vla4.f90 -O1 execution test >>> libgomp: libgomp.fortran/vla4.f90 -O2 execution test >>> libgomp: libgomp.fortran/vla4.f90 -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer - >>> funroll-loops -fpeel-loops -ftracer -finline-functions execution test >>> libgomp: libgomp.fortran/vla4.f90 -O3 -g execution test >>> libgomp: libgomp.fortran/vla4.f90 -Os execution test >>> libgomp: libgomp.fortran/vla5.f90 -O1 execution test >>> libgomp: libgomp.fortran/vla5.f90 -O2 execution test >>> libgomp: libgomp.fortran/vla5.f90 -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer - >>> funroll-loops -fpeel-loops -ftracer -finline-functions execution test >>> libgomp: libgomp.fortran/vla5.f90 -O3 -g execution test >>> libgomp: libgomp.fortran/vla5.f90 -Os execution test >> >> So if you could check on those, it'd be appreciated. > > I checked rv64gcv linux and those do not currently run in CI. OK. I'll Vineet's patch to an internal branch and force our CI to run on it. Stay tuned for results. jeff
On 5/14/24 8:51 AM, Patrick O'Neill wrote: > >> I was able to find the summary info: >> >>> Tests that now fail, but worked before (15 tests): >>> libgomp: libgomp.fortran/simd7.f90 -O0 execution test >>> libgomp: libgomp.fortran/task2.f90 -O0 execution test >>> libgomp: libgomp.fortran/vla2.f90 -O0 execution test >>> libgomp: libgomp.fortran/vla3.f90 -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer - >>> funroll-loops -fpeel-loops -ftracer -finline-functions execution test >>> libgomp: libgomp.fortran/vla3.f90 -O3 -g execution test >>> libgomp: libgomp.fortran/vla4.f90 -O1 execution test >>> libgomp: libgomp.fortran/vla4.f90 -O2 execution test >>> libgomp: libgomp.fortran/vla4.f90 -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer - >>> funroll-loops -fpeel-loops -ftracer -finline-functions execution test >>> libgomp: libgomp.fortran/vla4.f90 -O3 -g execution test >>> libgomp: libgomp.fortran/vla4.f90 -Os execution test >>> libgomp: libgomp.fortran/vla5.f90 -O1 execution test >>> libgomp: libgomp.fortran/vla5.f90 -O2 execution test >>> libgomp: libgomp.fortran/vla5.f90 -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer - >>> funroll-loops -fpeel-loops -ftracer -finline-functions execution test >>> libgomp: libgomp.fortran/vla5.f90 -O3 -g execution test >>> libgomp: libgomp.fortran/vla5.f90 -Os execution test >> >> So if you could check on those, it'd be appreciated. > > I checked rv64gcv linux and those do not currently run in CI. So just ran with Vineet's patch in our CI system. His patch is still triggering those regressions. So we need to get that resolved before that second patch can go in. jeff
On 5/14/24 08:44, Jeff Law wrote: > On 5/14/24 8:51 AM, Patrick O'Neill wrote: >>> I was able to find the summary info: >>> >>>> Tests that now fail, but worked before (15 tests): >>>> libgomp: libgomp.fortran/simd7.f90 -O0 execution test >>>> libgomp: libgomp.fortran/task2.f90 -O0 execution test >>>> libgomp: libgomp.fortran/vla2.f90 -O0 execution test >>>> libgomp: libgomp.fortran/vla3.f90 -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer - >>>> funroll-loops -fpeel-loops -ftracer -finline-functions execution test >>>> libgomp: libgomp.fortran/vla3.f90 -O3 -g execution test >>>> libgomp: libgomp.fortran/vla4.f90 -O1 execution test >>>> libgomp: libgomp.fortran/vla4.f90 -O2 execution test >>>> libgomp: libgomp.fortran/vla4.f90 -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer - >>>> funroll-loops -fpeel-loops -ftracer -finline-functions execution test >>>> libgomp: libgomp.fortran/vla4.f90 -O3 -g execution test >>>> libgomp: libgomp.fortran/vla4.f90 -Os execution test >>>> libgomp: libgomp.fortran/vla5.f90 -O1 execution test >>>> libgomp: libgomp.fortran/vla5.f90 -O2 execution test >>>> libgomp: libgomp.fortran/vla5.f90 -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer - >>>> funroll-loops -fpeel-loops -ftracer -finline-functions execution test >>>> libgomp: libgomp.fortran/vla5.f90 -O3 -g execution test >>>> libgomp: libgomp.fortran/vla5.f90 -Os execution test >>> So if you could check on those, it'd be appreciated. >> I checked rv64gcv linux and those do not currently run in CI. > So just ran with Vineet's patch in our CI system. His patch is still > triggering those regressions. So we need to get that resolved before > that second patch can go in. And just for reproducibility what exact --with-arch build is this from ? -Vineet
On 5/14/24 10:36 AM, Vineet Gupta wrote: > > > On 5/14/24 08:44, Jeff Law wrote: >> On 5/14/24 8:51 AM, Patrick O'Neill wrote: >>>> I was able to find the summary info: >>>> >>>>> Tests that now fail, but worked before (15 tests): >>>>> libgomp: libgomp.fortran/simd7.f90 -O0 execution test >>>>> libgomp: libgomp.fortran/task2.f90 -O0 execution test >>>>> libgomp: libgomp.fortran/vla2.f90 -O0 execution test >>>>> libgomp: libgomp.fortran/vla3.f90 -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer - >>>>> funroll-loops -fpeel-loops -ftracer -finline-functions execution test >>>>> libgomp: libgomp.fortran/vla3.f90 -O3 -g execution test >>>>> libgomp: libgomp.fortran/vla4.f90 -O1 execution test >>>>> libgomp: libgomp.fortran/vla4.f90 -O2 execution test >>>>> libgomp: libgomp.fortran/vla4.f90 -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer - >>>>> funroll-loops -fpeel-loops -ftracer -finline-functions execution test >>>>> libgomp: libgomp.fortran/vla4.f90 -O3 -g execution test >>>>> libgomp: libgomp.fortran/vla4.f90 -Os execution test >>>>> libgomp: libgomp.fortran/vla5.f90 -O1 execution test >>>>> libgomp: libgomp.fortran/vla5.f90 -O2 execution test >>>>> libgomp: libgomp.fortran/vla5.f90 -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer - >>>>> funroll-loops -fpeel-loops -ftracer -finline-functions execution test >>>>> libgomp: libgomp.fortran/vla5.f90 -O3 -g execution test >>>>> libgomp: libgomp.fortran/vla5.f90 -Os execution test >>>> So if you could check on those, it'd be appreciated. >>> I checked rv64gcv linux and those do not currently run in CI. >> So just ran with Vineet's patch in our CI system. His patch is still >> triggering those regressions. So we need to get that resolved before >> that second patch can go in. > > And just for reproducibility what exact --with-arch build is this from ? This run was with "--with-arch=rv64gc_zba_zbb_zbc_zbkb_zbs_zfa_zicond" I think we likely saw it without zbkb & zfa when we first looked at this a few months back. jeff
On 5/14/24 08:44, Jeff Law wrote: >>> I was able to find the summary info: >>> >>>> Tests that now fail, but worked before (15 tests): >>>> libgomp: libgomp.fortran/simd7.f90 -O0 execution test >>>> libgomp: libgomp.fortran/task2.f90 -O0 execution test >>>> libgomp: libgomp.fortran/vla2.f90 -O0 execution test >>>> libgomp: libgomp.fortran/vla3.f90 -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer - >>>> funroll-loops -fpeel-loops -ftracer -finline-functions execution test >>>> libgomp: libgomp.fortran/vla3.f90 -O3 -g execution test >>>> libgomp: libgomp.fortran/vla4.f90 -O1 execution test >>>> libgomp: libgomp.fortran/vla4.f90 -O2 execution test >>>> libgomp: libgomp.fortran/vla4.f90 -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer - >>>> funroll-loops -fpeel-loops -ftracer -finline-functions execution test >>>> libgomp: libgomp.fortran/vla4.f90 -O3 -g execution test >>>> libgomp: libgomp.fortran/vla4.f90 -Os execution test >>>> libgomp: libgomp.fortran/vla5.f90 -O1 execution test >>>> libgomp: libgomp.fortran/vla5.f90 -O2 execution test >>>> libgomp: libgomp.fortran/vla5.f90 -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer - >>>> funroll-loops -fpeel-loops -ftracer -finline-functions execution test >>>> libgomp: libgomp.fortran/vla5.f90 -O3 -g execution test >>>> libgomp: libgomp.fortran/vla5.f90 -Os execution test >>> So if you could check on those, it'd be appreciated. >> I checked rv64gcv linux and those do not currently run in CI. > So just ran with Vineet's patch in our CI system. His patch is still > triggering those regressions. So we need to get that resolved before > that second patch can go in. So CI pointed to a lone Fortran execute failure which is very likely also causing above. FAIL: gfortran.dg/PR93963.f90 -O0 execution test Turns out the alloca codepath in epilogue expansion is simply busted - I'm surprised that we only see 1 failure in the entire testsuite run (libgomp run aside). > - if (!SMALL_OPERAND (adjust_offset.to_constant ())) > + HOST_WIDE_INT adj_off_value = adjust_offset.to_constant (); > + if (SMALL_OPERAND (adj_off_value)) > + { > + adjust = GEN_INT (adj_off_value); > + } > + else if (SUM_OF_TWO_S12_ALGN (adj_off_value)) > + { > + HOST_WIDE_INT base, off; > + riscv_split_sum_of_two_s12 (adj_off_value, &base, &off); > + insn = gen_add3_insn (stack_pointer_rtx, hard_frame_pointer_rtx, > + GEN_INT (base)); 1. Missing gen_insn( ) here causes the insn to be overwritten by the subsequent emit_insn below. 2. In sum of two s12 logic first insn is sp = xx + 2048, with the additional insn expected to be of form sp = sp + off corresponding to stack_pointer_rtx+ stack_pointer_rtx+ off which the following emit_insn () below is not. ... > insn = emit_insn ( gen_add3_insn (stack_pointer_rtx, hard_frame_pointer_rtx, > adjust)); 3. Yet another issue had to do with which insn should the dwarf be attached -and the adj needed adjusting :-) So In v3 I've split this patch into the main prologue/epilogue change and one from the alloca one - which depending on reviewer guidance (aesthetics, ugliness, trying to keep uniformity etc ? can be decided upon. Thx, -Vineet
diff --git a/gcc/config/riscv/riscv-protos.h b/gcc/config/riscv/riscv-protos.h index 706dc204e643..6da6ae4d041f 100644 --- a/gcc/config/riscv/riscv-protos.h +++ b/gcc/config/riscv/riscv-protos.h @@ -166,6 +166,8 @@ extern void riscv_subword_address (rtx, rtx *, rtx *, rtx *, rtx *); extern void riscv_lshift_subword (machine_mode, rtx, rtx, rtx *); extern enum memmodel riscv_union_memmodels (enum memmodel, enum memmodel); extern bool riscv_reg_frame_related (rtx); +extern void riscv_split_sum_of_two_s12 (HOST_WIDE_INT, HOST_WIDE_INT *, + HOST_WIDE_INT *); /* Routines implemented in riscv-c.cc. */ void riscv_cpu_cpp_builtins (cpp_reader *); diff --git a/gcc/config/riscv/riscv.cc b/gcc/config/riscv/riscv.cc index 4067505270e1..4b742489b272 100644 --- a/gcc/config/riscv/riscv.cc +++ b/gcc/config/riscv/riscv.cc @@ -4063,6 +4063,32 @@ riscv_split_doubleword_move (rtx dest, rtx src) riscv_emit_move (riscv_subword (dest, true), riscv_subword (src, true)); } } + +/* Constant VAL is known to be sum of two S12 constants. Break it into + comprising BASE and OFF. + Numerically S12 is -2048 to 2047, however it uses the more conservative + range -2048 to 2032 as offsets pertain to stack related registers. */ + +void +riscv_split_sum_of_two_s12 (HOST_WIDE_INT val, HOST_WIDE_INT *base, + HOST_WIDE_INT *off) +{ + if (SUM_OF_TWO_S12_N (val)) + { + *base = -2048; + *off = val - (-2048); + } + else if (SUM_OF_TWO_S12_P_ALGN (val)) + { + *base = 2032; + *off = val - 2032; + } + else + { + gcc_unreachable (); + } +} + /* Return the appropriate instructions to move SRC into DEST. Assume that SRC is operand 1 and DEST is operand 0. */ @@ -7852,6 +7878,17 @@ riscv_expand_prologue (void) GEN_INT (-constant_frame)); RTX_FRAME_RELATED_P (emit_insn (insn)) = 1; } + else if (SUM_OF_TWO_S12_ALGN (-constant_frame)) + { + HOST_WIDE_INT base, off; + riscv_split_sum_of_two_s12 (-constant_frame, &base, &off); + insn = gen_add3_insn (stack_pointer_rtx, stack_pointer_rtx, + GEN_INT (base)); + RTX_FRAME_RELATED_P (emit_insn (insn)) = 1; + insn = gen_add3_insn (stack_pointer_rtx, stack_pointer_rtx, + GEN_INT (off)); + RTX_FRAME_RELATED_P (emit_insn (insn)) = 1; + } else { riscv_emit_move (RISCV_PROLOGUE_TEMP (Pmode), GEN_INT (-constant_frame)); @@ -8074,14 +8111,26 @@ riscv_expand_epilogue (int style) } else { - if (!SMALL_OPERAND (adjust_offset.to_constant ())) + HOST_WIDE_INT adj_off_value = adjust_offset.to_constant (); + if (SMALL_OPERAND (adj_off_value)) + { + adjust = GEN_INT (adj_off_value); + } + else if (SUM_OF_TWO_S12_ALGN (adj_off_value)) + { + HOST_WIDE_INT base, off; + riscv_split_sum_of_two_s12 (adj_off_value, &base, &off); + insn = gen_add3_insn (stack_pointer_rtx, hard_frame_pointer_rtx, + GEN_INT (base)); + RTX_FRAME_RELATED_P (insn) = 1; + adjust = GEN_INT (off); + } + else { riscv_emit_move (RISCV_PROLOGUE_TEMP (Pmode), - GEN_INT (adjust_offset.to_constant ())); + GEN_INT (adj_off_value)); adjust = RISCV_PROLOGUE_TEMP (Pmode); } - else - adjust = GEN_INT (adjust_offset.to_constant ()); } insn = emit_insn ( @@ -8148,10 +8197,21 @@ riscv_expand_epilogue (int style) /* Get an rtx for STEP1 that we can add to BASE. Skip if adjust equal to zero. */ - if (step1.to_constant () != 0) + HOST_WIDE_INT step1_value = step1.to_constant (); + if (step1_value != 0) { - rtx adjust = GEN_INT (step1.to_constant ()); - if (!SMALL_OPERAND (step1.to_constant ())) + rtx adjust = GEN_INT (step1_value); + if (SUM_OF_TWO_S12_ALGN (step1_value)) + { + HOST_WIDE_INT base, off; + riscv_split_sum_of_two_s12 (step1_value, &base, &off); + insn = emit_insn (gen_add3_insn (stack_pointer_rtx, + stack_pointer_rtx, + GEN_INT (base))); + RTX_FRAME_RELATED_P (insn) = 1; + adjust = GEN_INT (off); + } + else if (!SMALL_OPERAND (step1_value)) { riscv_emit_move (RISCV_PROLOGUE_TEMP (Pmode), adjust); adjust = RISCV_PROLOGUE_TEMP (Pmode); diff --git a/gcc/config/riscv/riscv.h b/gcc/config/riscv/riscv.h index 0d27c0d378df..d6b14c4d6205 100644 --- a/gcc/config/riscv/riscv.h +++ b/gcc/config/riscv/riscv.h @@ -641,6 +641,13 @@ enum reg_class #define SUM_OF_TWO_S12(VALUE) \ (SUM_OF_TWO_S12_N (VALUE) || SUM_OF_TWO_S12_P (VALUE)) +/* Variant with first value 8 byte aligned if involving stack regs. */ +#define SUM_OF_TWO_S12_P_ALGN(VALUE) \ + (((VALUE) >= (2032 + 1)) && ((VALUE) <= (2032 * 2))) + +#define SUM_OF_TWO_S12_ALGN(VALUE) \ + (SUM_OF_TWO_S12_N (VALUE) || SUM_OF_TWO_S12_P_ALGN (VALUE)) + /* If this is a single bit mask, then we can load it with bseti. Special handling of SImode 0x80000000 on RV64 is done in riscv_build_integer_1. */ #define SINGLE_BIT_MASK_OPERAND(VALUE) \ diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/riscv/pr105733.c b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/riscv/pr105733.c new file mode 100644 index 000000000000..6156c36dc7ef --- /dev/null +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/riscv/pr105733.c @@ -0,0 +1,15 @@ +/* { dg-do compile } */ +/* { dg-options { -march=rv64gcv -mabi=lp64d } } */ +/* { dg-skip-if "" { *-*-* } { "-O0" "-Og" "-Os" "-Oz" } } */ + +#define BUF_SIZE 2064 + +void +foo(unsigned long i) +{ + volatile char buf[BUF_SIZE]; + + buf[i] = 0; +} + +/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-not {li\t[a-x0-9]+,4096} } } */ diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/riscv/rvv/autovec/vls/spill-1.c b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/riscv/rvv/autovec/vls/spill-1.c index b64c73f34f13..6afcf1db593b 100644 --- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/riscv/rvv/autovec/vls/spill-1.c +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/riscv/rvv/autovec/vls/spill-1.c @@ -129,5 +129,5 @@ spill_12 (int8_t *in, int8_t *out) /* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times {addi\tsp,sp,-256} 1 } } */ /* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times {addi\tsp,sp,-512} 1 } } */ /* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times {addi\tsp,sp,-1024} 1 } } */ -/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times {addi\tsp,sp,-2048} 1 } } */ -/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times {li\t[a-x0-9]+,-4096\s+add\tsp,sp,[a-x0-9]+} 1 } } */ +/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times {addi\tsp,sp,-2048} 3 } } */ +/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times {addi\tsp,sp,2032} 1 } } */ diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/riscv/rvv/autovec/vls/spill-2.c b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/riscv/rvv/autovec/vls/spill-2.c index 8fcdca705384..544e8628a27b 100644 --- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/riscv/rvv/autovec/vls/spill-2.c +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/riscv/rvv/autovec/vls/spill-2.c @@ -120,5 +120,5 @@ spill_11 (int16_t *in, int16_t *out) /* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times {addi\tsp,sp,-256} 1 } } */ /* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times {addi\tsp,sp,-512} 1 } } */ /* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times {addi\tsp,sp,-1024} 1 } } */ -/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times {addi\tsp,sp,-2048} 1 } } */ -/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times {li\t[a-x0-9]+,-4096\s+add\tsp,sp,[a-x0-9]+} 1 } } */ +/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times {addi\tsp,sp,-2048} 3 } } */ +/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times {addi\tsp,sp,2032} 1 } } */ diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/riscv/rvv/autovec/vls/spill-3.c b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/riscv/rvv/autovec/vls/spill-3.c index ca296ce02d66..4bfeb07e9aca 100644 --- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/riscv/rvv/autovec/vls/spill-3.c +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/riscv/rvv/autovec/vls/spill-3.c @@ -111,5 +111,5 @@ spill_10 (int32_t *in, int32_t *out) /* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times {addi\tsp,sp,-256} 1 } } */ /* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times {addi\tsp,sp,-512} 1 } } */ /* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times {addi\tsp,sp,-1024} 1 } } */ -/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times {addi\tsp,sp,-2048} 1 } } */ -/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times {li\t[a-x0-9]+,-4096\s+add\tsp,sp,[a-x0-9]+} 1 } } */ +/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times {addi\tsp,sp,-2048} 3 } } */ +/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times {addi\tsp,sp,2032} 1 } } */ diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/riscv/rvv/autovec/vls/spill-4.c b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/riscv/rvv/autovec/vls/spill-4.c index ef61d9a2c0c3..1faf31ffd8e0 100644 --- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/riscv/rvv/autovec/vls/spill-4.c +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/riscv/rvv/autovec/vls/spill-4.c @@ -102,5 +102,5 @@ spill_9 (int64_t *in, int64_t *out) /* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times {addi\tsp,sp,-256} 1 } } */ /* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times {addi\tsp,sp,-512} 1 } } */ /* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times {addi\tsp,sp,-1024} 1 } } */ -/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times {addi\tsp,sp,-2048} 1 } } */ -/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times {li\t[a-x0-9]+,-4096\s+add\tsp,sp,[a-x0-9]+} 1 } } */ +/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times {addi\tsp,sp,-2048} 3 } } */ +/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times {addi\tsp,sp,2032} 1 } } */ diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/riscv/rvv/autovec/vls/spill-5.c b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/riscv/rvv/autovec/vls/spill-5.c index 150135a91103..0c8dccc518e3 100644 --- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/riscv/rvv/autovec/vls/spill-5.c +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/riscv/rvv/autovec/vls/spill-5.c @@ -120,5 +120,5 @@ spill_11 (_Float16 *in, _Float16 *out) /* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times {addi\tsp,sp,-256} 1 } } */ /* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times {addi\tsp,sp,-512} 1 } } */ /* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times {addi\tsp,sp,-1024} 1 } } */ -/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times {addi\tsp,sp,-2048} 1 } } */ -/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times {li\t[a-x0-9]+,-4096\s+add\tsp,sp,[a-x0-9]+} 1 } } */ +/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times {addi\tsp,sp,-2048} 3 } } */ +/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times {addi\tsp,sp,2032} 1 } } */ diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/riscv/rvv/autovec/vls/spill-6.c b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/riscv/rvv/autovec/vls/spill-6.c index c5d2d0194348..8bf53b84d1cd 100644 --- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/riscv/rvv/autovec/vls/spill-6.c +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/riscv/rvv/autovec/vls/spill-6.c @@ -111,5 +111,5 @@ spill_10 (float *in, float *out) /* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times {addi\tsp,sp,-256} 1 } } */ /* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times {addi\tsp,sp,-512} 1 } } */ /* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times {addi\tsp,sp,-1024} 1 } } */ -/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times {addi\tsp,sp,-2048} 1 } } */ -/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times {li\t[a-x0-9]+,-4096\s+add\tsp,sp,[a-x0-9]+} 1 } } */ +/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times {addi\tsp,sp,-2048} 3 } } */ +/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times {addi\tsp,sp,2032} 1 } } */ diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/riscv/rvv/autovec/vls/spill-7.c b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/riscv/rvv/autovec/vls/spill-7.c index 70ca683908db..e3980a295406 100644 --- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/riscv/rvv/autovec/vls/spill-7.c +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/riscv/rvv/autovec/vls/spill-7.c @@ -102,5 +102,5 @@ spill_9 (int64_t *in, int64_t *out) /* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times {addi\tsp,sp,-256} 1 } } */ /* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times {addi\tsp,sp,-512} 1 } } */ /* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times {addi\tsp,sp,-1024} 1 } } */ -/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times {addi\tsp,sp,-2048} 1 } } */ -/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times {li\t[a-x0-9]+,-4096\s+add\tsp,sp,[a-x0-9]+} 1 } } */ +/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times {addi\tsp,sp,-2048} 3 } } */ +/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times {addi\tsp,sp,2032} 1 } } */
If the constant used for stack offset can be expressed as sum of two S12 values, the constant need not be materialized (in a reg) and instead the two S12 bits can be added to instructions involved with frame pointer. This avoids burning a register and more importantly can often get down to be 2 insn vs. 3. The prev patches to generally avoid LUI based const materialization didn't fix this PR and need this directed fix in funcion prologue/epilogue expansion. This fix doesn't move the neddle for SPEC, at all, but it is still a win considering gcc generates one insn fewer than llvm for the test ;-) gcc-13.1 release | gcc 230823 | | | g6619b3d4c15c | This patch | clang/llvm --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- li t0,-4096 | li t0,-4096 | addi sp,sp,-2048 | addi sp,sp,-2048 addi t0,t0,2016 | addi t0,t0,2032 | add sp,sp,-16 | addi sp,sp,-32 li a4,4096 | add sp,sp,t0 | add a5,sp,a0 | add a1,sp,16 add sp,sp,t0 | addi a5,sp,-2032 | sb zero,0(a5) | add a0,a0,a1 li a5,-4096 | add a0,a5,a0 | addi sp,sp,2032 | sb zero,0(a0) addi a4,a4,-2032 | li t0, 4096 | addi sp,sp,32 | addi sp,sp,2032 add a4,a4,a5 | sb zero,2032(a0) | ret | addi sp,sp,48 addi a5,sp,16 | addi t0,t0,-2032 | | ret add a5,a4,a5 | add sp,sp,t0 | add a0,a5,a0 | ret | li t0,4096 | sd a5,8(sp) | sb zero,2032(a0)| addi t0,t0,-2016 | add sp,sp,t0 | ret | gcc/ChangeLog: PR target/105733 * config/riscv/riscv.h: New macros for with aligned offsets. * config/riscv/riscv.cc (riscv_split_sum_of_two_s12): New function to split a sum of two s12 values into constituents. (riscv_expand_prologue): Handle offset being sum of two S12. (riscv_expand_epilogue): Ditto. * config/riscv/riscv-protos.h (riscv_split_sum_of_two_s12): New. gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog: * gcc.target/riscv/pr105733.c: New Test. * gcc.target/riscv/rvv/autovec/vls/spill-1.c: Adjust to not expect LUI 4096. * gcc.target/riscv/rvv/autovec/vls/spill-2.c: Ditto. * gcc.target/riscv/rvv/autovec/vls/spill-3.c: Ditto. * gcc.target/riscv/rvv/autovec/vls/spill-4.c: Ditto. * gcc.target/riscv/rvv/autovec/vls/spill-5.c: Ditto. * gcc.target/riscv/rvv/autovec/vls/spill-6.c: Ditto. * gcc.target/riscv/rvv/autovec/vls/spill-7.c: Ditto. Signed-off-by: Vineet Gupta <vineetg@rivosinc.com> --- gcc/config/riscv/riscv-protos.h | 2 + gcc/config/riscv/riscv.cc | 74 +++++++++++++++++-- gcc/config/riscv/riscv.h | 7 ++ gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/riscv/pr105733.c | 15 ++++ .../riscv/rvv/autovec/vls/spill-1.c | 4 +- .../riscv/rvv/autovec/vls/spill-2.c | 4 +- .../riscv/rvv/autovec/vls/spill-3.c | 4 +- .../riscv/rvv/autovec/vls/spill-4.c | 4 +- .../riscv/rvv/autovec/vls/spill-5.c | 4 +- .../riscv/rvv/autovec/vls/spill-6.c | 4 +- .../riscv/rvv/autovec/vls/spill-7.c | 4 +- 11 files changed, 105 insertions(+), 21 deletions(-) create mode 100644 gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/riscv/pr105733.c