On 13/01/14 16:16, Tom de Vries wrote:
> On 10-01-14 12:39, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
>>>>>> Consequently, you'll need to add a patch for AArch64 which has two
>>>>>> registers clobbered by PLT-based calls.
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for pointing that out. That's r16 and r17, right? I can propose the
>>>> hook
>>>> for AArch64, once we all agree on how the hook should look.
>>>>
>> Yes; and thanks!
>
> Hi Richard,
>
> I'm posting this patch that implements the TARGET_FN_OTHER_HARD_REG_USAGE
> hook
> for aarch64. It uses the conservative hook format for now.
>
> I've build gcc and cc1 with the patch, and observed the impact on this code
> snippet:
> ...
> static int
> bar (int x)
> {
> return x + 3;
> }
>
> int
> foo (int y)
> {
> return y + bar (y);
> }
> ...
>
> AFAICT, that looks as expected:
> ...
> $ gcc fuse-caller-save.c -mno-lra -fno-use-caller-save -O2 -S -o- > 1
> $ gcc fuse-caller-save.c -mno-lra -fuse-caller-save -O2 -S -o- > 2
> $ diff -u 1 2
> --- 1 2014-01-13 16:51:24.000000000 +0100
> +++ 2 2014-01-13 16:51:19.000000000 +0100
> @@ -11,14 +11,12 @@
> .global foo
> .type foo, %function
> foo:
> - stp x29, x30, [sp, -32]!
> + stp x29, x30, [sp, -16]!
> + mov w1, w0
> add x29, sp, 0
> - str x19, [sp,16]
> - mov w19, w0
> bl bar
> - add w0, w0, w19
> - ldr x19, [sp,16]
> - ldp x29, x30, [sp], 32
> + ldp x29, x30, [sp], 16
> + add w0, w0, w1
> ret
> .size foo, .-foo
> .section .text.startup,"ax",%progbits
> ...
>
> Btw, the results are the same for -mno-lra and -mlra. I'm just using the
> -mno-lra version here because the -mlra version of -fuse-caller-save is still
> in
> review ( http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-12/msg00586.html ).
>
> Thanks,
> - Tom
>
>
> fuse-caller-save-aarch64-hook.patch
>
>
> 2014-01-11 Tom de Vries <t...@codesourcery.com>
>
> * config/aarch64/aarch64.c (TARGET_FN_OTHER_HARD_REG_USAGE): Redefine as
> aarch64_fn_other_hard_reg_usage.
> (aarch64_fn_other_hard_reg_usage): New function.
> ---
> gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64.c | 15 +++++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64.c b/gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64.c
> index 3b1f6b5..295fd5d 100644
> --- a/gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64.c
> +++ b/gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64.c
> @@ -3287,6 +3287,16 @@ aarch64_fixed_condition_code_regs (unsigned int *p1,
> unsigned int *p2)
> return true;
> }
>
> +/* Implement TARGET_FN_OTHER_HARD_REG_USAGE. */
> +
> +static bool
> +aarch64_fn_other_hard_reg_usage (struct hard_reg_set_container *regs)
> +{
> + SET_HARD_REG_BIT (regs->set, R16_REGNUM);
> + SET_HARD_REG_BIT (regs->set, R17_REGNUM);
> + return true;
> +}
I think that in this context using IP0_REGNUM and IP1_REGNUM would be
slightly clearer; since it is because these registers are the
inter-procedure-call scratch registers that they aren't safe to use in
this context.
Otherwise, this is OK.
R.
