On Wed, Nov 07, 2018 at 06:08:33PM -0600, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 07, 2018 at 04:07:15PM +1030, Alan Modra wrote:
> > +extern const char *rs6000_output_call (rtx *, unsigned int, bool, const
> > char *);
>
> Maybe have a separate rs6000_output_call and rs6000_output_sibcall? Bare
> boolean function parameters aren't great. (They can of course both call
> rs6000_output_call_1 or whatever, if that makes sense).
>
> > --- a/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.c
> > +++ b/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.c
> > @@ -21380,6 +21380,37 @@ rs6000_assemble_integer (rtx x, unsigned int size,
> > int aligned_p)
> > return default_assemble_integer (x, size, aligned_p);
> > }
> >
> > +/* Return a template string for assembly to emit when making an
> > + external call. FUN is the %z argument, ARG is either NULL or
> > + a @TLSGD or @TLSLD __tls_get_addr argument specifier. */
> > +
> > +const char *
> > +rs6000_output_call (rtx *operands, unsigned int fun, bool sibcall,
> > + const char *arg)
> > +{
> > + /* -Wformat-overflow workaround, without which gcc thinks that %u
> > + might produce 10 digits. FUN is 0 or 1 as of 2018-03. */
> > + gcc_assert (fun <= 6);
>
> So "fun" is the operand number. Rename it, and use MAX_RECOG_OPERANDS
> instead of 6? And allow for it to take 2 or 3 chars to print :-)
Eh, so I can't have a little fun? funop then? (It's the index of the
call operand that has the function symref or whatever to call.)
> "operands" is unused here, compiling this will warn.
Oops, I did bootstrap each patch individually at one stage..
Probably happened when I edited the patchset, to reduce the size of
later changes. rs6000_output_call didn't have "operands" to start
with.
> "output" is a lie, this function doesn't output anything. Hardly the
> only case of this in the rs6000 port, but it is annoying. What would be
> a good name for this... "rs6000_template_for_call"?
OK, I went with rs6000_call_template and rs6000_sibcall_template.
Next patch also changed to use rs6000_indirect_call_template and
rs6000_indirect_sibcall_template. Final patch uses
rs6000_pltseq_template.
> Are there some patterns that can be collapsed to one after this?
No, I don't think so. Patch 5/6 does some of that for TLS calls.
--
Alan Modra
Australia Development Lab, IBM
