[aarch64-port-dev ] RFR(S): 8204353 - AARCH64: optimize FPU load and stores in macroAssembler

[Dmitrij Pochepko]

Now that dependency of this patch is done(8204473 - AARCH64: register 
post-index addressing mode is not supported directly), is it a good time 
to review this one?


Thanks,

Dmitrij


On 06.06.2018 16:43, Dmitrij Pochepko wrote:
>
> On 06.06.2018 15:37, Andrew Haley wrote:
>> On 06/06/2018 01:30 PM, Dmitrij Pochepko wrote:
>>> You can take a look here:
>>> http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk/jdk/file/tip/src/hotspot/cpu/aarch64/assembler_aarch64.hpp#l2068 
>>>
>>> As you can see, switch by a.getMode() has 3 cases:
>>>
>>> 1) "base_plus_offset" (expecting only 0 offset. This is for "base
>>> register, no offset" ld/st addressing mode
>>> 2) "post"- this if for immediate post-index mode
>>> 3) "base_plus_offset_reg" which is treated further as register
>>> post-index mode.
>> Well, yes, but I can't see that being [ab]used anywhere in the existing
>> source.
>>
>>> I'll create separate issue and patch, which will add new address mode
>>> (something like: "post_reg"). And final syntax for such mode usage will
>>> be ... Address(post(<reg1>, <reg2>)), which makes it more readable.
>> Yes.  And please disallow the use of Address(reg, reg) while you're 
>> doing
>> that.
>>
>>> After that I'll update this fpu ld/st optimization patch accordingly.
>> OK.
>>
>
> Please take a look at webrev.02: 
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dpochepk/8204353/webrev.02/
>
> The only change is to match changes in JDK-8204473 -  AARCH64: 
> register post-index addressing mode is not supported directly
>
> 2 entries of "Address(sp, rscratch1)" is now "Address(post(sp, 
> rscratch1))"
>
>
> I relaunched hotspot jtreg compiler tests as sanity with both patches. 
> No new failures found.
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Dmitrij
>