On Sun, 2015-05-17 at 11:09 -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 05/17/2015 10:21 AM, Jon Beniston wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > The gccint docs for pre_modify/post_modify say that the address modifier
> > must be one of three forms:
> >
> > (plus:m x z), (minus:m x z), or (plus:m x i), where z is an index register
> > and i is a constant.
> >
> > Why isn’t (plus:m x (mult:m z i)) supported, for architectures that support
> > scaling of the index register (E.g. ARM?)
> >
> >
> >
> > Compiling:
> >
> > int *f(int *p, int x, int z)
> > {
> > p[z] = x;
> > return p + z;
> > }
> >
> > For ARM results in:
> >
> > str r1, [r0, r2, asl #2]
> > add r0, r0, r2, asl #2
> >
> > Rather than just:
> >
> > str r1, [r0, r2, asl #2]!
> >
> > Should this be improved by expanding what pre/post_modify supports, as
> > above, or perhaps a peephole optimisation?
> I don't think it was really considered with we added pre/post_modify a
> while back -- IIRC it was primarily driven by whatever port Michael
> Hayes was working on at the time plus the capabilities of PPC and HPPA
> at the time.
>
> We'd certainly welcome patches to support scaling in the pre/post_modify
> addressing modes.
One of this year's Google Summer of Code GCC Projects will try to
address some of the deficits of address mode selection/utilization in
GCC:
https://www.google-melange.com/gsoc/project/details/google/gsoc2015/erikvarga/5693417237512192
Ideas and use cases are highly appreciated.
Cheers,
Oleg
