Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
JIT: Reorder stores to make them amenable to stp optimization #102133
JIT: Reorder stores to make them amenable to stp optimization #102133
Changes from all commits
fe39722
6696818
ef40b64
da4fbb1
fb718e5
233554a
eab1cbf
5a78b5e
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The
baseAddr
for bothprevIndir
andindir
is assumed to be same? Can we have an assert for it?There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
It's not that easy to assert (it won't be exactly the same, just something that we expect the emitter peephole to kick in for). But it's also not a precondition for this function that the addresses must be related in some way -- the function works fine even without that. So I don't think there is a good reason to try to assert it.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I mean will we mistakenly use offsets of different base address and combine them, leading to bad codegen?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This reordering here doesn't combine the stores or loads. It just puts them next to each other. Combining them is done by the peephole in the emitter.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Sure, what I meant is we might end up reordering unrelated
indir
andprevIndir
but the peephole emitter will make sure that we combine the correct matchingindir
andprevIndir
only.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yes, but this function is still correct even if you ask it to make two indirs off of unrelated addresses adjacent. There is no correctness requirement that the addresses relate in some way; this is not a precondition for the function. Hence why I don't see a good reason to try to assert that (and furthermore, it isn't easy to assert it).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Ok, just wanted to confirm my understanding.