On четвъртък, 21 юни 2018 г. 17:03:55 EEST Jeff Law wrote:
> On 06/21/2018 11:44 AM, Vladimir Makarov wrote:
> > On 06/13/2018 02:58 PM, Dimitar Dimitrov wrote:
> >> From: Dimitar Dimitrov <dddimit...@mm-sol.com>
> >>
> >> For some targets, Pmode != UNITS_PER_WORD. Take this into account
> >> when marking hard registers as being used.
> >>
> >> I tested C and C++ testsuits for x86_64 with and without this
> >> patch. There was no regression, i.e. gcc.sum and g++.sum matched
> >> exactly.
> >>
> >> gcc/ChangeLog:
> >>
> >> 2018-06-13 Dimitar Dimitrov <dimi...@dinux.eu>
> >>
> >> * lra-eliminations.c (set_ptr_hard_reg_bits): New function.
> >> (update_reg_eliminate): Mark all spanning hw registers.
> >>
> >> gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
> >>
> >> 2018-06-13 Dimitar Dimitrov <dimi...@dinux.eu>
> >>
> >> * gcc.target/pru/lra-framepointer-fragmentation-1.c: New test.
> >> * gcc.target/pru/lra-framepointer-fragmentation-2.c: New test.
> >>
> >> Cc: Vladimir Makarov <vmaka...@redhat.com>
> >> Cc: Peter Bergner <berg...@vnet.ibm.com>
> >> Cc: Kenneth Zadeck <zad...@naturalbridge.com>
> >> Cc: Seongbae Park <seongbae.p...@gmail.com>
> >> Signed-off-by: Dimitar Dimitrov <dddimit...@mm-sol.com>
> >> ---
> >> gcc/lra-eliminations.c | 14 ++++-
> >> .../pru/lra-framepointer-fragmentation-1.c | 33 ++++++++++++
> >> .../pru/lra-framepointer-fragmentation-2.c | 61
> >> ++++++++++++++++++++++
> >> 3 files changed, 106 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >> create mode 100644
> >> gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/pru/lra-framepointer-fragmentation-1.c
> >> create mode 100644
> >> gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/pru/lra-framepointer-fragmentation-2.c
> >>
> >> diff --git a/gcc/lra-eliminations.c b/gcc/lra-eliminations.c
> >> index 21d8d5f8018..566cc2c8248 100644
> >> --- a/gcc/lra-eliminations.c
> >> +++ b/gcc/lra-eliminations.c
> >> @@ -1180,6 +1180,16 @@ spill_pseudos (HARD_REG_SET set)
> >> bitmap_clear (&to_process);
> >> }
> >> +static void set_ptr_hard_reg_bits (HARD_REG_SET *hard_reg_set, int r)
> >> +{
> >> + int w;
> >> +
> >> + for (w = 0; w < GET_MODE_SIZE (Pmode); w += UNITS_PER_WORD, r++)
> >> + {
> >> + SET_HARD_REG_BIT (*hard_reg_set, r);
> >> + }
> >> +}
> >> +
> >
> > The patch itself is ok but for uniformity I'd use
> >
> > for (int i = hard_regno_nregs (r, Pmode) - 1; i >= 0; i--)
> > SET_HARD_REG_BIT (*hard_reg_set, r + i);
>
> I'm a bit surprised we don't already have a utility function to do this.
> Hmmm
>
> add_to_hard_reg_set (hard_reg_set, Pmode, r)
>
> So instead LRA ought to be using that function in the places where calls
> to set_ptr_hard_reg_bits were introduced.
>
> Dimitar, can you verify that change works?
Thank you. I'll test it and will update the patch.
The SET_HARD_REG_BIT call in check_pseudos_live_through_calls also seems
suspicous to me. I'll try to come up with a regression test case to justify
its upgrade to add_to_hard_reg_set().
Regards,
Dimitar
