On Wed, 2 Aug 2023, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Mon, 31 Jul 2023, Jeff Law wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > On 7/31/23 04:54, Richard Biener via Gcc-patches wrote:
> > > On Tue, 25 Jul 2023, Richard Biener wrote:
> > >
> > >> The following applies a micro-optimization to find_hard_regno_for_1,
> > >> re-ordering the check so we can easily jump-thread by using an else.
> > >> This reduces the time spent in this function by 15% for the testcase
> > >> in the PR.
> > >>
> > >> Bootstrap & regtest running on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu, OK if that
> > >> passes?
> > >
> > > Ping.
> > >
> > >> Thanks,
> > >> Richard.
> > >>
> > >> PR rtl-optimization/110587
> > >> * lra-assigns.cc (find_hard_regno_for_1): Re-order checks.
> > >> ---
> > >> gcc/lra-assigns.cc | 9 +++++----
> > >> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> > >>
> > >> diff --git a/gcc/lra-assigns.cc b/gcc/lra-assigns.cc
> > >> index b8582dcafff..d2ebcfd5056 100644
> > >> --- a/gcc/lra-assigns.cc
> > >> +++ b/gcc/lra-assigns.cc
> > >> @@ -522,14 +522,15 @@ find_hard_regno_for_1 (int regno, int *cost, int
> > >> @@ try_only_hard_regno,
> > >> r2 != NULL;
> > >> r2 = r2->start_next)
> > >> {
> > >> - if (r2->regno >= lra_constraint_new_regno_start
> > >> + if (live_pseudos_reg_renumber[r2->regno] < 0
> > >> + && r2->regno >= lra_constraint_new_regno_start
> > >> && lra_reg_info[r2->regno].preferred_hard_regno1 >= 0
> > >> - && live_pseudos_reg_renumber[r2->regno] < 0
> > >> && rclass_intersect_p[regno_allocno_class_array[r2->regno]])
> > >> sparseset_set_bit (conflict_reload_and_inheritance_pseudos,
> > >> r2->regno);
> > >> - if (live_pseudos_reg_renumber[r2->regno] >= 0
> > >> - &&
> > >> rclass_intersect_p[regno_allocno_class_array[r2->regno]])
> > >> + else if (live_pseudos_reg_renumber[r2->regno] >= 0
> > >> + && rclass_intersect_p
> > >> + [regno_allocno_class_array[r2->regno]])
> > >> sparseset_set_bit (live_range_hard_reg_pseudos, r2->regno);
> > My biggest concern here would be r2->regno < 0 in the new code which could
> > cause an OOB array reference in the first condition of the test.
> >
> > Isn't that the point if the original ordering? Test that r2->regno is
> > reasonable before using it as an array index?
>
> Note the original code is
>
> if (r2->regno >= lra_constraint_new_regno_start
> ...
> if (live_pseudos_reg_renumber[r2->regno] >= 0
> ...
>
> so we are going to access live_pseudos_reg_renumber[r2->regno]
> independent on the r2->regno >= lra_constraint_new_regno_start check,
> so I don't think that's the point of the original ordering. Note
> I preserved the ordering with respect to other array accesses,
> the speedup seen is because we now have the
>
>
> if (live_pseudos_reg_renumber[r2->regno] < 0
> ...
> else if (live_pseudos_reg_renumber[r2->regno] >= 0
> ...
>
> structure directly exposed which helps the compiler.
>
> I think the check on r2->regno is to decide whether to alter
> conflict_reload_and_inheritance_pseudos or
> live_range_hard_reg_pseudos (so it's also somewhat natural to check
> that first).
So - OK?
Thanks,
Richard.
