Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]


Groups > comp.compilers > #312

Re: How to eliminate redundant constant move instructions

From amker <amker.cheng@gmail.com>
Newsgroups comp.compilers
Subject Re: How to eliminate redundant constant move instructions
Date 2011-11-01 20:58 -0700
Organization Compilers Central
Message-ID <11-11-010@comp.compilers> (permalink)
References <11-10-019@comp.compilers> <11-11-004@comp.compilers>

Show all headers | View raw


On Nov 2, 2:32 am, George Neuner <gneuner2@comcast.net> wrote:
> It's very hard to tell anything without more context - we need to know
> what CPU, what compiler, and we need to see the surrounding code.

Sorry for the misleading message, the test case comes from a reported
gcc bug, at:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44025


> -fcprop-register, which is a peephole pass that eliminates redundant
> register moves (introduced by other optimizations), but that is

Yes, I found that pass, and seems it can solve the problem if I:
1, extend the pass in a value numbering way, at least for const
values;
2, extend the pass in a global data analysis way;

> performed after register allocation.

After register allocation also brings advantages, like no register
pressure issue.

> You have to remember that many CPUs can execute multiple
> instructions in parallel, and those parallel instruction streams may
> be executed out of order with respect to a program listing.

This is What I have missed. But in this manner I will never know which
codes is better since the performance depends on scheduling and
out-of- ordering...  right?

Thanks for your explanation.

Back to comp.compilers | Previous | NextPrevious in thread | Find similar


Thread

How to eliminate redundant constant move instructions "Amker.Cheng" <amker.cheng@gmail.com> - 2011-10-31 17:53 +0800
  Re: How to eliminate redundant constant move instructions Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2011-10-31 17:08 +0000
    Re: How to eliminate redundant constant move instructions amker <can.finner@gmail.com> - 2011-11-01 19:01 -0700
    Re: How to eliminate redundant constant move instructions mac <acolvin@efunct.com> - 2011-11-03 02:20 +0000
  Re: How to eliminate redundant constant move instructions George Neuner <gneuner2@comcast.net> - 2011-11-01 14:32 -0400
    Re: How to eliminate redundant constant move instructions glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2011-11-01 22:35 +0000
      Re: How to eliminate redundant constant move instructions amker <can.finner@gmail.com> - 2011-11-01 19:35 -0700
      Re: How to eliminate redundant constant move instructions amker <amker.cheng@gmail.com> - 2011-11-01 21:04 -0700
      Re: How to eliminate redundant constant move instructions George Neuner <gneuner2@comcast.net> - 2011-11-02 12:38 -0400
        Re: How to eliminate redundant constant move instructions Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2011-11-03 03:20 +0000
          Re: How to eliminate redundant constant move instructions George Neuner <gneuner2@comcast.net> - 2011-11-04 13:27 -0400
            Re: How to eliminate redundant constant move instructions glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2011-11-04 21:19 +0000
        Re: How to eliminate redundant constant move instructions glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2011-11-03 03:32 +0000
    Re: How to eliminate redundant constant move instructions amker <can.finner@gmail.com> - 2011-11-01 19:21 -0700
      Re: How to eliminate redundant constant move instructions George Neuner <gneuner2@comcast.net> - 2011-11-04 17:26 -0400
        Re: How to eliminate redundant constant move instructions amker <amker.cheng@gmail.com> - 2011-11-07 17:33 -0800
          Re: How to eliminate redundant constant move instructions Wei-Jen Chen <chenwj@cs.NCTU.edu.tw> - 2011-11-10 08:04 +0000
          Re: How to eliminate redundant constant move instructions George Neuner <gneuner2@comcast.net> - 2011-11-10 18:18 -0500
    Re: How to eliminate redundant constant move instructions amker <amker.cheng@gmail.com> - 2011-11-01 20:58 -0700

csiph-web