On 29.01.2016 16:47 Bernd Schmidt wrote:
> On 01/29/2016 04:41 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>> On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 02:09:25AM +0100, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
>
>>> I think a better approach might be to just mark accesses at known
>>> locations
>>> in the frame, or arg pushes, as MEM_NOTRAP_P, and consider accesses with
>>> non-constant or calculated offsets as potentially trapping.
>>
>> I don't see how that would work generally. Sure, if there is e.g. a
>> constant
>> offset array access, it could be checked easily, but if there is
>> variable offset
>> array access, that is at some point later on changed into a constant
>> offset
>> access, you'd need to be conservative, unless you can prove it is in
>> range.
>
> Yes. What is the problem with that? If we have (plus sfp const_int) at
> any point before reload, we can check whether that offset is inside
> frame_size. If it isn't or if the offset isn't known, it could trap.
>
>
Usually we have "if (x==1234) { read MEM[FP+x]; }", so wo don't know,
and then after reload: "if (x==1234) { read MEM[SP+x+sp_fp_offset]; }"
but wait, in the if statement we know, that x==1234, so everything
turns in one magic constant, and we have a totally new constant offset
from the SP register "if (x==1234) { read MEM[SP+1234+sp_fp_offset]; }".
Now if rtx_addr_can_trap_p(MEM[SP+1234+sp_fp_offset]) says it cannot
trap we think we do not need the if at all => BANG.
Bernd.
