[fpc-devel] Proposed new utility functions for x86 peephole optimiser (and maybe others)

[J. Gareth Moreton]

And I got the equation wrong for the permissive one.  It's meant to be 
something like the following instead:

"(r1.volatility + r2.volatility - permitted_volatility) = []"

Gareth aka. Kit

On 11/01/2022 08:59, J. Gareth Moreton via fpc-devel wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> During my implementation of a new optimisation, 
> https://gitlab.com/freepascal.org/fpc/source/-/merge_requests/136, 
> which merges some references, Florian asked me to make sure I check 
> the volatility fields of the references, something which I forgot 
> about, but which turned out was already covered thanks to the fields 
> being checked by the RefsEqual function (they must both be []).
>
> It got me thinking, but in this case, the two references that are 
> optimised are only read from, not written, so the optimisation would 
> still be valid if one or both were vol_write.  Would it be plausible 
> to maybe add a couple of versions of RefsEqual that address volatility 
> better? For example:
>
> function RefsEqualPermissive(const r1, r2: treference; 
> permitted_volatility: tvolatilityset): Boolean;
>
> In this case, anything in permitted_volatility is considered 
> 'allowed', so the optimisation in the link above would permit 
> vol_write since the references are only read from, and this would be 
> checked in the function by "(r1.volatility + permitted_volatility) = 
> (r2.volatility + permitted_volatility)". In the case of 
> permitted_volatility = vol_write, if either r1 or r2 has vol_read, the 
> comparison fails.
>
> function RefsEqualVolatile(const r1, r2: treference): Boolean;
>
> In this version, the volatility isn't checked at all and is logically 
> equivalent to calling RefsEqualPermissive with [vol_read, vol_write] 
> (and any other values that are added), but slightly faster.
>
> Gareth aka. Kit
>
>

-- 
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus