> On Jan 11, 2023, at 7:38 PM, Paul Koning via Gcc <gcc@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
>
>
>
>> On Jan 11, 2023, at 2:52 PM, Segher Boessenkool <seg...@kernel.crashing.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Paul,
>>
>> On Tue, Jan 10, 2023 at 02:39:34PM -0500, Paul Koning via Gcc wrote:
>>> In pdp11.md I have:
>>>
>>> (define_insn_and_split "addhi3"
>>> [(set (match_operand:HI 0 "nonimmediate_operand" "=rR,rR,Q,Q")
>>> (plus:HI (match_operand:HI 1 "general_operand" "%0,0,0,0")
>>> (match_operand:HI 2 "general_operand" "rRLM,Qi,rRLM,Qi")))]
>>> ""
>>> "#"
>>> "reload_completed"
>>> [(parallel [(set (match_dup 0)
>>> (plus:HI (match_dup 1) (match_dup 2)))
>>> (clobber (reg:CC CC_REGNUM))])]
>>> ""
>>> [(set_attr "length" "2,4,4,6")])
>>>
>>> While compiling libgcc2.c I see this RTL in the .ira dump file:
>>>
>>> (insn 49 48 53 5 (set (reg/f:HI 136)
>>> (plus:HI (reg/f:HI 5 r5)
>>> (const_int -8 [0xfffffffffffffff8])))
>>> "../../../../../gcc/libgcc/libgcc2.c":276:4 68 {addhi3}
>>> (expr_list:REG_EQUIV (plus:HI (reg/f:HI 5 r5)
>>> (const_int -8 [0xfffffffffffffff8]))
>>> (nil)))
>>
>> What hard register was assigned by IRA to r136? It shows this in the
>> .ira dump file, search for "Disposition:".
>
> Disposition:
> 3:r25 l0 mem 40:r26 l0 4 51:r31 l0 mem 47:r35 l0 mem
> 42:r45 l0 2 18:r47 l0 mem 38:r52 l0 mem 34:r54 l0 mem
> 29:r64 l0 2 21:r80 l0 0 15:r88 l0 0 2:r99 l0 0
> 19:r102 l0 mem 5:r103 l0 mem 31:r110 l0 0 44:r114 l0 0
> 41:r115 l0 mem 46:r116 l0 0 28:r117 l0 mem 33:r118 l0 0
> 20:r119 l0 2 14:r120 l0 2 1:r121 l0 2 0:r122 l0 mem
> 9:r123 l0 mem 8:r124 l0 mem 55:r125 l0 0 53:r126 l0 mem
> 54:r129 l0 0 52:r135 l0 0 49:r136 l0 5 48:r137 l0 4
> 50:r139 l0 0 45:r145 l0 mem 43:r146 l0 0 39:r147 l0 0
> 36:r148 l0 5 35:r149 l0 4 37:r151 l0 0 32:r157 l0 mem
> 30:r158 l0 0 27:r159 l0 0 25:r160 l0 mem 26:r161 l0 0
> 24:r164 l0 0 22:r165 l0 mem 23:r166 l0 0 16:r170 l0 mem
> 17:r171 l0 0 11:r175 l0 0 13:r176 l0 2 12:r177 l0 2
> 10:r178 l0 0 6:r179 l0 mem 7:r180 l0 0 4:r184 l0 0
>
> so R5, if I read that correctly. Which makes sense given that the input
> operand is R5.
>>
>>> Then in the .reload dump it appears this way:
>>>
>>> (insn 49 48 53 5 (set (reg/f:HI 5 r5 [136])
>>> (plus:HI (reg/f:HI 6 sp)
>>> (const_int 40 [0x28])))
>>> "../../../../../gcc/libgcc/libgcc2.c":276:4 68 {addhi3}
>>> (expr_list:REG_EQUIV (plus:HI (reg/f:HI 5 r5)
>>> (const_int -8 [0xfffffffffffffff8]))
>>> (nil)))
>>>
>>> which obviously causes an ICE because that RTL doesn't meet the constraints.
>>
>> Before reload it did not have operands[0] and operands[1] the same,
>> already?
>
> No, and given that it's an addhi3 pattern that is fine before reload. It's
> reload that has to make them match because the machine instruction is two
> operand.
It occurs to me there's a strange transformation LRA made that I don't
understand, which is the cause of the trouble.
Input:
(insn 49 48 53 5 (set (reg/f:HI 136)
(plus:HI (reg/f:HI 5 r5)
(const_int -8 [0xfffffffffffffff8]))) "_mulvdi3.i":38:4 68 {addhi3}
(expr_list:REG_EQUIV (plus:HI (reg/f:HI 5 r5)
(const_int -8 [0xfffffffffffffff8]))
(nil)))
(insn 53 49 50 5 (set (reg/f:HI 137)
(symbol_ref:HI ("__muldi3") [flags 0x41] <function_decl 0x104927d00
__muldi3>)) "_mulvdi3.i":38:4 25 {movhi}
(expr_list:REG_EQUIV (symbol_ref:HI ("__muldi3") [flags 0x41]
<function_decl 0x104927d00 __muldi3>)
(nil)))
and the IRA "disposition" says it assigned R5 for R136, which is what should
happen given that operand 1 (in the plus:HI) is R5 and the constraint says that
operands 0 and 1 should match.
However, Reload shows that it is given:
(insn 49 48 53 5 (set (reg/f:HI 5 r5 [136])
(plus:HI (reg/f:HI 6 sp)
(const_int 40 [0x28]))) "_mulvdi3.i":38:4 68 {addhi3}
(expr_list:REG_EQUIV (plus:HI (reg/f:HI 5 r5)
(const_int -8 [0xfffffffffffffff8]))
(nil)))
In other words, R136 was replaced by R5 as expected -- but at the same time,
the source operands were replaced by something entirely different. It is a
misguided attempt to eliminate the frame pointer? R5 can be the frame pointer,
if it is needed for that purpose. And replacing an FP reference by an SP
reference is reasonable enough, but such a substitution has to verify that the
constraints are still satisfied. Is that something the target code has to
provide? I'm not aware of it.
paul
