[Bug target/47754] New: [missed optimization] AVX allows unaligned memory operands but GCC uses unaligned load and register operand

[kretz at kde dot org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47754

           Summary: [missed optimization] AVX allows unaligned memory
                    operands but GCC uses unaligned load and register
                    operand
           Product: gcc
           Version: 4.5.0
            Status: UNCONFIRMED
          Severity: minor
          Priority: P3
         Component: target
        AssignedTo: unassig...@gcc.gnu.org
        ReportedBy: kr...@kde.org


According to the AVX docs: "With the exception of explicitly aligned 16 or 32
byte SIMD load/store instructions, most VEX-encoded, arithmetic and data
processing instructions operate in a flexible environment regarding memory
address alignment, i.e. VEX-encoded instruction with 32-byte or 16-byte load
semantics will support unaligned load operation by default. Memory arguments
for most instructions with VEX prefix operate normally without causing #GP(0)
on any byte-granularity alignment (unlike Legacy SSE instructions)."

I tested whether GCC would take advantage of this, and found that it doesn't:

_mm256_store_ps(&data[3],
  _mm256_add_ps(_mm256_load_ps(&data[0]), _mm256_load_ps(&data[1]))
);
compiles to:
vmovaps 0x200b18(%rip),%ymm0
vaddps 0x200b13(%rip),%ymm0,%ymm0
vmovaps %ymm0,0x200b10(%rip)

whereas

_mm256_store_ps(&data[3],
  _mm256_add_ps(_mm256_loadu_ps(&data[0]), _mm256_loadu_ps(&data[1]))
);
compiles to:
vmovups 0x200b4c(%rip),%ymm0
vmovups 0x200b40(%rip),%ymm1
vaddps %ymm0,%ymm1,%ymm0
vmovaps %ymm0,0x200b3c(%rip)

GCC could use a memory operand in the vaddps here instead. According to the AVX
docs, this doesn't hurt performance. But it reduces register pressure AFAIU.

Would be nice to have.