Hi!
On Mon, Oct 29, 2018 at 06:47:23AM +0900, Stafford Horne wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 27, 2018 at 09:57:30PM -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> > > +/* Helper for defining INITIAL_ELIMINATION_OFFSET.
> > > + We allow the following eliminiations:
> > > + FP -> HARD_FP or SP
> > > + AP -> HARD_FP or SP
> > > +
> > > + HFP and AP are the same which is handled below. */
> > > +
> > > +HOST_WIDE_INT
> > > +or1k_initial_elimination_offset (int from, int to)
> >
> > You could calculate this as some_offset (from) - some_offset (to) with
> > some_offset a simple helper function. That gives you all possible
> > eliminations :-)
> >
> > (Each offset is very cheap to compute in your case, so that's not a
> > problem).
>
> Right, Do you mean something like the following? I think it would work, but I
> am not sure it make the code easier to read. Do you think there would be much
> benefits supporting all possible eliminations?
Yes, like that. It also easily can handle the other combos (those with
STACK_POINTER), and it is easier if you have to switch FRAME_GROWS_DOWNWARD
("false" is better on some args, but "true" is required for ssp).
Your code is fine as-is of course.
> > > +#undef TARGET_RTX_COSTS
> > > +#define TARGET_RTX_COSTS or1k_rtx_costs
> >
> > You may want TARGET_INSN_COST as well (it is easier to get (more) correct).
>
> OK, I was not considering that for the first port. Perhaps after getting this
> in? I think in general the OpenRISC insruction costs are fairly flat for the
> ones are using.
Oh, this was just a suggestion for the future :-)
If you compile with -dp you will see the cost and length for every insn
annotated; are most/all correct?
> > > + This ABI has no adjacent call-saved register, which means that
> > > + DImode/DFmode pseudos cannot be call-saved and will always be
> > > + spilled across calls. To solve this without changing the ABI,
> > > + remap the compiler internal register numbers to place the even
> > > + call-saved registers r16-r30 in 24-31, and the odd call-clobbered
> > > + registers r17-r31 in 16-23. */
> >
> > Ooh evilness :-)
>
> Richard did this, I thought it was rather clever. :)
Yes!
> > > +#define FUNCTION_ARG_REGNO_P(r) (r >= 3 && r <= 8)
> >
> > IN_RANGE ?
>
> OK, I may change it, I think without the macro, its easy to understand that
> its
> (inclusive).
Yeah, you'll have to remember that IN_RANGE always is inclusive too. Maybe
if it were used more that woul become second nature to more people :-)
Segher
