This happens because the AVR backend of gcc defines RTL for wide mode
instructions it does not have. So what you have here is a literal
translation from
a single RTL instruction into 8 assembler instructions. The compiler
sees 1 instruction.
And yes you are correct this produces sub-optimal code.
The solution - yet to be implemented is to split wide mode instructions
into byte (or word) sized pieces. Then RTL will more closely match
assembler. This would remove the need for additional registers and also
allow further optimisation.
It is little bit tricky, as not all instructions can be split. (Those
involving carry are problem). Splitting instruction too early will
create mixture that can prevent certain optimisations.
Andy
Moritz Struebe wrote:
Hi there,
I just came past the following code. I'm optimizing with -Os.
static INLINE void setBeef(HEAPNODE * node){
*((u_long *) ((uptr_t) node + node->hn_size - sizeof(0xDEADBEEF)))
= 0xDEADBEEF;
3c8: 8f ee ldi r24, 0xEF ; 239
3ca: 9e eb ldi r25, 0xBE ; 190
3cc: ad ea ldi r26, 0xAD ; 173
3ce: be ed ldi r27, 0xDE ; 222
3d0: b2 93 st -Z, r27
3d2: a2 93 st -Z, r26
3d4: 92 93 st -Z, r25
3d6: 82 93 st -Z, r24
The T register is already filled, so that's fine. But why are 4
additional registers needed? Doesn't the following code do the same?
Especially as registers are quite valuable?
ldi r24, 0xDE ; 222
st -Z, r24
ldi r24, 0xAD ; 173
st -Z, r24
ldi r24, 0xBE ; 190
st -Z, r24
ldi r24, 0xEF ; 239
st -Z, r24
I'm neither too familiar with assembler nor compiler. Therefore an
answer like: "Yes, your're right, but adding such an optimization is
difficult / nobody was motivated to implement it." will satisfy me. ;-)
Cheers
Morty
_______________________________________________
AVR-GCC-list mailing list
AVR-GCC-list@nongnu.org
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/avr-gcc-list
_______________________________________________
AVR-GCC-list mailing list
AVR-GCC-list@nongnu.org
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/avr-gcc-list
