Re: Bad Code generated from __{get,put}_unaligned functions

[Michael Cree <mcree@orcon.net.nz>]

Falk Hueffner wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 06, 2009 at 01:56:12PM -0400, Matt Turner wrote:
>   
>> I was researching different ways of writing unaligned load/store
>> macros, so I checked how the kernel did it -- the most general way
>> possible. See include/linux/unaligned.h. As such, very bad code is
>> generated, for example on alpha with BWX, we can implement all these
>> functions with a single instruction, whereas we get stuff like this
>> generated from the generic functions.
>>
>> __get_unaligned_le32:
>>     .frame $30,0,$26,0
>>     .prologue 0
>>     ldbu $0,1($16)
>>     ldbu $1,2($16)
>>     ldbu $2,3($16)
>>     ldbu $3,0($16)
>>     sll $1,16,$1
>>     sll $0,8,$0
>>     bis $0,$1,$0
>>     sll $2,24,$2
>>     bis $0,$3,$0
>>     bis $0,$2,$0
>>     addl $31,$0,$0
>>     ret $31,($26),1
>>
>> 4 load byte instructions, shift, shift, or, shift, or, or, sign extend
>> -- or ldl_u instruction. The code is more than doubly-bad for le64.
>>
>> Do we use the generic functions for a reason I don't see? It appears
>> that it would be easy enough to add architecture-specific unaligned
>> get/put functions in arch/*/include/asm/unaligned.h
>>     
>
> There should be no need for architecture specific code for Alpha. GCC
> can generate the optimal code sequence for reads from unaligned struct
> members as in linux/unaligned/packed_struct.h, and this code should be
> used. So you should try to find out why it isn't.
>   

Indeed, the above code looks like what one would expect from the 
routines in linux/unaligned/le_byteshift.h rather than packed_struct.h

Michael.