On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 7:11 PM, H.J. Lu <hjl.to...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 8:54 AM, Uros Bizjak <ubiz...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 4:05 AM, H.J. Lu <hjl.to...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Sun, Jan 14, 2018 at 1:23 PM, H.J. Lu <hjl.to...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> On Sun, Jan 14, 2018 at 10:52 AM, Uros Bizjak <ubiz...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> On Sun, Jan 14, 2018 at 7:08 PM, H.J. Lu <hjl.to...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> On Sun, Jan 14, 2018 at 9:51 AM, Uros Bizjak <ubiz...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> - (ior (and (not (match_test "TARGET_X32")) >>>>>>> + (ior (and (not (match_test "TARGET_X32 >>>>>>> + || ix86_indirect_branch_thunk_register")) >>>>>>> (match_operand 0 "sibcall_memory_operand")) >>>>>>> - (and (match_test "TARGET_X32 && Pmode == DImode") >>>>>>> + (and (match_test "TARGET_X32 && Pmode == DImode >>>>>>> + && !ix86_indirect_branch_thunk_register") >>>>>>> (match_operand 0 "GOT_memory_operand")))) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Is this patch just trying to disable the predicate when >>>>>>> ix86_indirect_branch_thunk_register is set? Because this is what this >>>>>>> convoluted logic does. >>>>>> >>>>>> Yes, we want to disable all indirect branch via memory with >>>>>> -mindirect-branch-register, just like -mx32. We could do >>>>>> >>>>>> #idefine TARGET_INDIRECT_BRANCH_REGISTER \ >>>>>> (TARGER_X32 || ix86_indirect_branch_thunk_register) >>>>> >>>>> Index: predicates.md >>>>> =================================================================== >>>>> --- predicates.md (revision 256666) >>>>> +++ predicates.md (working copy) >>>>> @@ -710,11 +710,10 @@ >>>>> (ior (match_test "constant_call_address_operand >>>>> (op, mode == VOIDmode ? mode : Pmode)") >>>>> (match_operand 0 "call_register_no_elim_operand") >>>>> - (ior (and (not (match_test "TARGET_X32 >>>>> - || >>>>> ix86_indirect_branch_thunk_register")) >>>>> + (and (not (match_test "ix86_indirect_branch_thunk_register")) >>>>> + (ior (and (not (match_test "TARGET_X32"))) >>>>> (match_operand 0 "memory_operand")) >>>>> - (and (match_test "TARGET_X32 && Pmode == DImode >>>>> - && !ix86_indirect_branch_thunk_register") >>>>> + (and (match_test "TARGET_X32 && Pmode == DImode") >>>>> (match_operand 0 "GOT_memory_operand"))))) >>>>> >>>>> or something like that. >>>>> >>>> >>>> I am testing this patch. OK for trunk if there is no regression? >>>> >>> >>> Here is the updated patch. Tested on i686 and x86-64. OK for >>> trunk? >> >> There are two of the same issues in constraints.md >> >> On further inspection, there are several new >> ix86_indirect_branch_thunk_register conditions sprinkled around >> predicates.md. The one in indirect_branch_operand is understandable >> (but should be written as: >> >> (ior (match_operand 0 "register_operand") >> (and (not (match_test "ix86_indirect_thunk_register")) >> (not (match_test "TARGET_X32")) >> (match_operand 0 "memory_operand")))) >> ) >> >> but the ones in GOT_memory_operand and GOT32_symbol_operand should >> *not* be there, since these are simple pattern matches. Now we have >> situation where e.g. call_got_x32 and sibcall_got_32 patterns never >> match, and should be disabled with >> ix86_indirect_branch_thunk_register. Please move >> ix86_indirect_branch_thunk_register conditions out of these two >> predicates. > > I break them into 4 smaller patches: > > https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-01/msg01361.html > https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-01/msg01360.html > https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-01/msg01362.html > https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-01/msg01359.html
Hopefully, OK. Thanks, Uros.
