[9] RFR(S): 8075136: Unnecessary sign extension for byte array access
Andrew Dinn
adinn at redhat.com
Wed Mar 18 11:45:02 UTC 2015
On 18/03/15 11:38, Andrew Haley wrote:
> On 03/18/2015 11:19 AM, Tobias Hartmann wrote:
>> . . .
>> Yes, it's because we have no operand for the indirect-with-offset
>> (no scaling) case and therefore it is matched to 'addP_reg_reg_ext'.
>>
>> For this reason I added the two new operands indIndexOffsetI2L and
>> indIndexOffsetI2LN. But even with those operands, it only works if
>> we reduce their cost below INSN_COST. Otherwise, 'AddP (AddP reg
>> (ConvI2L ireg)) off' is matched to 'addP_reg_reg_ext' (cost
>> INSN_COST)
>
> Aha! That's the bug. 'addP_reg_reg_ext' should be 2*INSN_COST,
> along with all the ALU extend and/or shift instructions. My
> bad, probably.
Ok, seems like Andrew Haley has pretty much answered this. So, fixing
the addP_reg_reg_ext rule should be all that is needed.
There is still one lingering question Andrew did not address:
>> I still wonder if it would pay off to remove the sign extension
>> completely (as we do on x86)?
I don't know if this actually matters. I don't have any evidence to
suggest that sxtw is going to cost any more than uxtw. Perhaps andrew
Haley can comment on this?
regards,
Andrew Dinn
-----------
Senior Principal Software Engineer
Red Hat UK Ltd
Registered in UK and Wales under Company Registration No. 3798903
Directors: Michael Cunningham (USA), Matt Parson (USA), Charlie Peters
(USA), Michael O'Neill (Ireland)
More information about the hotspot-compiler-dev
mailing list