On 2/7/20 11:28 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 07, 2020 at 10:57:22AM +0000, JonY wrote:
>>>> Is this patch testing still required? I just got back from traveling.
>>>
>>> Yes, our reading of the MS ABI docs show that xmm16-31 are to be call used
>>> (not preserved over calls), while in gcc they are currently handled as
>>> preserved across the calls.
>
> The other parts are I guess mainly about SEH. Consider e.g.
> void
> foo (void)
> {
> register double x __asm ("xmm14");
> register double y __asm ("xmm18");
> asm ("" : "=x" (x));
> asm ("" : "=v" (y));
> x += y;
> y += x;
> asm ("" : : "x" (x));
> asm ("" : : "v" (y));
> }
> looking at cross-compiler output, with -O2 -mavx512f this emits
> .file "abcdeq.c"
> .text
> .align 16
> .globl foo
> .def foo; .scl 2; .type 32; .endef
> .seh_proc foo
> foo:
> subq $40, %rsp
> .seh_stackalloc 40
> vmovaps %xmm14, (%rsp)
> .seh_savexmm %xmm14, 0
> vmovaps %xmm18, 16(%rsp)
> .seh_savexmm %xmm18, 16
> .seh_endprologue
> vaddsd %xmm18, %xmm14, %xmm14
> vaddsd %xmm18, %xmm14, %xmm18
> vmovaps (%rsp), %xmm14
> vmovaps 16(%rsp), %xmm18
> addq $40, %rsp
> ret
> .seh_endproc
> .ident "GCC: (GNU) 10.0.1 20200207 (experimental)"
> Does whatever assembler mingw64 uses even assemble this (I mean the
> .seh_savexmm %xmm16, 16 could be problematic)?''It does not, I just checked with the master branch of binutils. > I can find e.g. > https://stackoverflow.com/questions/43152633/invalid-register-for-seh-savexmm-in-cygwin/43210527 > which then links to > https://gcc.gnu.org/PR65782 > > So, I'd say we want to add PR target/65782 to the ChangeLog entry in the > patch, and likely add a testcase like the above, so like below? > > Have you tested the earlier version of the patch on mingw64 or cygwin? > If yes, can you just test the testcase from the following patch, without and > with the i386.h part and verify it FAILs without and PASSes with it? > Just make check-gcc RUNTESTFLAGS=i386.exp=pr65782.c should do? > If not, can you please test the whole patch? > I did a -c test build with an older toolchain, it fails to compile (invalid register for .seh_savexmm) while the latest gcc is passing, both are using the same binutils version. I guess that covers it? > 2020-02-07 Uroš Bizjak <ubiz...@gmail.com> > Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com> > > PR target/65782 > * config/i386/config/i386/i386.h (CALL_USED_REGISTERS): Make > xmm16-xmm31 call-used even in 64-bit ms-abi. > > * gcc.target/i386/pr65782.c: New test. > > --- gcc/config/i386/config/i386/i386.h.jj 2020-01-22 10:19:24.199221986 > +0100 > +++ gcc/config/i386/config/i386/i386.h 2020-02-04 12:09:12.338341003 > +0100 > @@ -1128,9 +1128,9 @@ extern const char *host_detect_local_cpu > /*xmm8,xmm9,xmm10,xmm11,xmm12,xmm13,xmm14,xmm15*/ \ > 6, 6, 6, 6, 6, 6, 6, 6, \ > /*xmm16,xmm17,xmm18,xmm19,xmm20,xmm21,xmm22,xmm23*/ \ > - 6, 6, 6, 6, 6, 6, 6, 6, \ > + 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, \ > /*xmm24,xmm25,xmm26,xmm27,xmm28,xmm29,xmm30,xmm31*/ \ > - 6, 6, 6, 6, 6, 6, 6, 6, \ > + 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, \ > /* k0, k1, k2, k3, k4, k5, k6, k7*/ \ > 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1 } > > --- gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr65782.c.jj 2020-02-07 > 12:21:09.472819018 +0100 > +++ gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr65782.c 2020-02-07 12:24:06.820154495 > +0100 > @@ -0,0 +1,16 @@ > +/* PR target/65782 */ > +/* { dg-do assemble { target { avx512vl && { ! ia32 } } } } */ > +/* { dg-options "-O2 -mavx512vl" } */ > + > +void > +foo (void) > +{ > + register double x __asm ("xmm14"); > + register double y __asm ("xmm18"); > + asm ("" : "=x" (x)); > + asm ("" : "=v" (y)); > + x += y; > + y += x; > + asm ("" : : "x" (x)); > + asm ("" : : "v" (y)); > +} > > > Jakub >
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
