"Paul Edwards" <mutazi...@gmail.com> wrote on 03.09.2021 13:35:10: > > Specifically, if you try to run AMODE64 with Pmode equals > > SImode, the compiler will not be aware that the hardware > > uses the high 32 bits of base and index registers, and > > will not necessarily keep them zero. > The compiler naturally keeps them zero. The > instructions that are used to load registers > do not pollute the high-order 32 bits.
While this is true for most instructions, the compiler will not restrict itself to using only those. (As just one obvious example, the compiler may use "lay" with a negative displacement, which will set the high bits of a GPR in AMODE64.) It is of course possible to change the back-end to ensure that SImode operations always leave the high part unmodified; for example LLVM does that, because it wants to allocate the high parts seperately for use with the high-word facility instructions. But GCC currently does not do so. > > Also, the compiler > > will assume the base + index (+ displacement) arithmetic > > will operate in 32 bits -- I'm pretty sure this is > > actually the root cause of your "negative index" problem. > Where is this logic please? Can I do a #if 0 or similar > to disable it? This is not in one single place, but spread throughout the compiler, both common code and back-end. I do not think it will be possible to get the compiler to generate correct code if you do not specify the address size correctly. AMODE64 will require Pmode == DImode. (And, b.t.w. not the -m31 DImode, which is a pair of 32-bit GPRs, but rather the -m64 DImode, which is a single 64-bit GPR.) > > If you want to go for an "x32" like mode, I think this > > is wrong approach. The right approach would be to > > start from "-m64", and simply modify the pointer size > > to be 32 bits. > > This would work by setting POINTER_SIZE to 32, while > > leaving everything else like for -m64. > > That will generate 64-bit z/Arch instructions. > I wish to generate ESA/390 instructions. Why? AMODE64 exists only in z/Arch, so of course there will be z/Arch instructions available ... > > We've thought about implementing this mode for Linux, > > but decided not to do it, since it would only provide > > marginal performance improvements, and has the drawback > > of being another new ABI that would be incompatible to > > the whole existing software ecosystem. > Shouldn’t the end user be able to decide this > for themselves? It's open source, of course everybode can decide what they want to work on themselves. But we decide what we spend our own time on based on we think is useful ... > No-one at all is interested in 32-bit mainframes? Not any more, at least not in Linux. Linux is pretty much 64-bit only at this point. Bye, Ulrich
