Re: unrecognizable insn after adding clobbers
On 18/05/2010 13:01, Paulo J. Matos wrote:
I have for call_value a define_expand and define_insn that look like:
(define_expand call_value
[
(set (match_operand 0 )
(call (match_operand:QI 1 nonmemory_operand )
(match_operand:QI 2 immediate_operand )))
]
)
(define_insn *call_value
[
(set (match_operand 0 )
(call (mem:QI (match_operand:HI 1 callable_operand yY,i))
(match_operand:QI 2 immediate_operand i,i)))
]
!TARGET_X
{
return target_call(operands); // deals with op0, 1 and 2.
})
(define_insn *call_value_complex
[
(set (match_operand 0 )
(call (mem:QI (match_operand:HI 1 callable_operand yY,i))
(match_operand:QI 2 immediate_operand i,i)))
(clobber (match_scratch:QI 3 y,y))
(clobber (match_scratch:QI 4 y,y))
]
TARGET_X
{
return target_complex_call(operands); // deals with op0, 1, 2, 3, and 4.
})
This however causes an unrecognizable insn error during the compiler
runtime when I have TARGET_X defined.
I was expecting the clobbers not to influence the recognition but it
seems I was wrong.
Actually, IIUC the clobbers don't influence the recognition, that is
correct, so both those patterns look identical to the recognizer and
effectively only the first one will ever be matched by combine, then too late
the target condition kicks in and the second one pops up and goes oi, where's
my clobbers?. Or something like that.
I think what you need to do is explicitly (TARGET_X ? gen_call_value_complex
: gen_call_value); DONE in your expander.
cheers,
DaveK
Re: unrecognizable insn after adding clobbers
On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 3:26 PM, Dave Korn dave.korn.cyg...@gmail.com wrote: This however causes an unrecognizable insn error during the compiler runtime when I have TARGET_X defined. I was expecting the clobbers not to influence the recognition but it seems I was wrong. Actually, IIUC the clobbers don't influence the recognition, that is correct, so both those patterns look identical to the recognizer and effectively only the first one will ever be matched by combine, then too late the target condition kicks in and the second one pops up and goes oi, where's my clobbers?. Or something like that. Got it, thanks for the explanation. It makes sense. I think what you need to do is explicitly (TARGET_X ? gen_call_value_complex : gen_call_value); DONE in your expander. So I guess i need something like emit_call_insn(TARGET_X ? gen_call_value_complex(...) : gen_call_value(...)); DONE but what do I pass to the gen_* functions? I don't really have anything to pass to them at this point, I just want gcc to expand those. However if I pass no arguments it claims I haven't passed enough arguments. -- PMatos
Re: unrecognizable insn after adding clobbers
On 18/05/2010 15:24, Paulo J. Matos wrote: On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 3:26 PM, Dave Korn dave.korn.cyg...@gmail.com wrote: This however causes an unrecognizable insn error during the compiler runtime when I have TARGET_X defined. I was expecting the clobbers not to influence the recognition but it seems I was wrong. Actually, IIUC the clobbers don't influence the recognition, that is correct, so both those patterns look identical to the recognizer and effectively only the first one will ever be matched by combine, then too late the target condition kicks in and the second one pops up and goes oi, where's my clobbers?. Or something like that. Got it, thanks for the explanation. It makes sense. I think what you need to do is explicitly (TARGET_X ? gen_call_value_complex : gen_call_value); DONE in your expander. So I guess i need something like emit_call_insn(TARGET_X ? gen_call_value_complex(...) : gen_call_value(...)); DONE but what do I pass to the gen_* functions? I don't really have anything to pass to them at this point, I just want gcc to expand those. However if I pass no arguments it claims I haven't passed enough arguments. They need the contents of the operands[] array passed to them, and you'll have to allocate the scratch registers (as pseudos) yourself, I guess (which of course means you can't generate these after reload, should you ever want to). Hmm, I'm not so sure of my answer now, maybe I'm forgetting something. I do remember having trouble trying to make an insn work with two variants that different only in clobbers before. cheers, DaveK
