On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 10:48 AM H.J. Lu <hjl.to...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 18, 2020 at 10:21 AM H.J. Lu <hjl.to...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 3:52 PM Jeff Law <l...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On 9/16/20 8:46 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote: > > > > > > "H.J. Lu" <hjl.to...@gmail.com> writes: > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 15, 2020 at 7:44 AM Richard Sandiford > > > <richard.sandif...@arm.com> wrote: > > > > > > Thanks for looking at this. > > > > > > "H.J. Lu" <hjl.to...@gmail.com> writes: > > > > > > commit 1bcb4c4faa4bd6b1c917c75b100d618faf9e628c > > > Author: Richard Sandiford <richard.sandif...@arm.com> > > > Date: Wed Oct 2 07:37:10 2019 +0000 > > > > > > [LRA] Don't make eliminable registers live (PR91957) > > > > > > didn't make eliminable registers live which breaks > > > > > > register void *cur_pro asm("reg"); > > > > > > where "reg" is an eliminable register. Make fixed eliminable registers > > > live to fix it. > > > > > > I don't think fixedness itself is the issue here: it's usual for at > > > least some registers involved in eliminations to be fixed registers. > > > > > > I think what makes this case different is instead that cur_pro/ebp > > > is a global register. But IMO things have already gone wrong if we > > > think that a global register is eliminable. > > > > > > So I wonder if instead we should check global_regs at the beginning of: > > > > > > for (i = 0; i < fp_reg_count; i++) > > > if (!TEST_HARD_REG_BIT (crtl->asm_clobbers, > > > HARD_FRAME_POINTER_REGNUM + i)) > > > { > > > SET_HARD_REG_BIT (eliminable_regset, > > > HARD_FRAME_POINTER_REGNUM + i); > > > if (frame_pointer_needed) > > > SET_HARD_REG_BIT (ira_no_alloc_regs, > > > HARD_FRAME_POINTER_REGNUM + i); > > > } > > > else if (frame_pointer_needed) > > > error ("%s cannot be used in %<asm%> here", > > > reg_names[HARD_FRAME_POINTER_REGNUM + i]); > > > else > > > df_set_regs_ever_live (HARD_FRAME_POINTER_REGNUM + i, true); > > > > > > (ira_setup_eliminable_regset), and handle the global_regs[] case in > > > the same way as the else case, i.e. short-circuiting both of the ifs. > > > > > > Like this? > > > > > > Sorry for the delay. I was testing this in parallel. > > > > > > Bootstrapped & regression-tested on x86_64-linux-gnu. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Richard > > > > > > > > > 0001-ira-Fix-elimination-for-global-hard-FPs-PR91957.patch > > > > > > From af4499845d26fe65573b21197a79fd22fd38694e Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > > > From: "H.J. Lu" <hjl.to...@gmail.com> > > > Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2020 06:23:26 -0700 > > > Subject: [PATCH] ira: Fix elimination for global hard FPs [PR91957] > > > MIME-Version: 1.0 > > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > > > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit > > > > > > If the hard frame pointer is being used as a global register, > > > we should skip the usual handling for eliminations. As the > > > comment says, the register cannot in that case be eliminated > > > (or eliminated to) and is already marked live where appropriate. > > > > > > Doing this removes the duplicate error for gcc.target/i386/pr82673.c. > > > The “cannot be used in 'asm' here” message is meant to be for asm > > > statements rather than register asms, and the function that the > > > error is reported against doesn't use asm. > > > > > > gcc/ > > > 2020-09-16 Richard Sandiford <richard.sandif...@arm.com> > > > > > > PR middle-end/91957 > > > * ira.c (ira_setup_eliminable_regset): Skip the special elimination > > > handling of the hard frame pointer if the hard frame pointer is fixed. > > > > > > gcc/testsuite/ > > > 2020-09-16 H.J. Lu <hjl.to...@gmail.com> > > > Richard Sandiford <richard.sandif...@arm.com> > > > > > > PR middle-end/91957 > > > * g++.target/i386/pr97054.C: New test. > > > * gcc.target/i386/pr82673.c: Remove redundant extra message. > > > > > > OK > > > > OK for GCC 10 branch? > > > > Thanks. > > PING: > > https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2020-September/554268.html >
PING. -- H.J.