Re: Revert "PowerPC shrink-wrap support 3 of 3"

On Thu, 10 Nov 2011, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote: > I think I need someone with appropriate write privileges to > agree with that, and to also give 48h for someone to fix the > problem. Sorry for not forthcoming on the second point. > > brgds, H-P > PS. where is the policy written down, besides the

Re: CFG review needed for fix of "PowerPC shrink-wrap support 3 of 3"

On 11/14/2011 11:56 AM, Alan Modra wrote: > * function.c (thread_prologue_and_epilogue_insns): Guard > emitting return with single_succ_p test. Ok. r~

Re: CFG review needed for fix of "PowerPC shrink-wrap support 3 of 3"

From: Bernd Schmidt Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2011 01:54:34 +0100 > On 11/15/11 01:43, Richard Henderson wrote: >> On 11/14/2011 11:56 AM, Alan Modra wrote: >>> * function.c (thread_prologue_and_epilogue_insns): Guard >>> emitting return with single_succ_p test. >> >> Hmm. This looks plausible

Re: CFG review needed for fix of "PowerPC shrink-wrap support 3 of 3"

On 11/15/11 01:43, Richard Henderson wrote: > On 11/14/2011 11:56 AM, Alan Modra wrote: >> * function.c (thread_prologue_and_epilogue_insns): Guard >> emitting return with single_succ_p test. > > Hmm. This looks plausible too. > > Bernd's patch made sure that cfglayout didn't do some

Re: CFG review needed for fix of "PowerPC shrink-wrap support 3 of 3"

On 11/14/2011 11:56 AM, Alan Modra wrote: > On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 07:48:03AM -1000, Richard Henderson wrote: >> On 11/14/2011 04:10 AM, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote: >>> Looks like all we need is a positive review of >>> and a >>> ChangeLog en

Re: CFG review needed for fix of "PowerPC shrink-wrap support 3 of 3"

> From: Alan Modra > Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2011 22:56:48 +0100 > I haven't really looked into what Bernd's fix does. I know this one > fixes what I broke.. Hm... Oh well, I'm trusting RTH and Bernd that it fixed a real issue. Thanks for looking (and a belated thanks to RTH for the review). brgds,

Re: CFG review needed for fix of "PowerPC shrink-wrap support 3 of 3"

> From: Richard Henderson > Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2011 18:48:03 +0100 > On 11/14/2011 04:10 AM, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote: > > Looks like all we need is a positive review of > > and a > > ChangeLog entry to unbreak three or more targets. > > >

Re: CFG review needed for fix of "PowerPC shrink-wrap support 3 of 3"

On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 07:48:03AM -1000, Richard Henderson wrote: > On 11/14/2011 04:10 AM, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote: > > Looks like all we need is a positive review of > > and a > > ChangeLog entry to unbreak three or more targets. > > >

Re: CFG review needed for fix of "PowerPC shrink-wrap support 3 of 3"

On 11/14/2011 04:10 AM, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote: > Looks like all we need is a positive review of > and a > ChangeLog entry to unbreak three or more targets. > > Someone with approval rights: pretty please? That patch is ok. r~

Re: CFG review needed for fix of "PowerPC shrink-wrap support 3 of 3"

Ramana Radhakrishnan writes: >> Someone with approval rights: pretty please? > > Can I add my +1 "pretty please" as well here :) ? According to #c3 > this fixes arm-linux-gnueabi cross-builds for C++ as well and > potentially allows this to bootstrap again. I have kicked off a > bootstrap and tes

Re: CFG review needed for fix of "PowerPC shrink-wrap support 3 of 3"

> > Someone with approval rights: pretty please? Can I add my +1 "pretty please" as well here :) ? According to #c3 this fixes arm-linux-gnueabi cross-builds for C++ as well and potentially allows this to bootstrap again. I have kicked off a bootstrap and test run on arm-linux-gnueabi . cheers Ra

CFG review needed for fix of "PowerPC shrink-wrap support 3 of 3"

> From: Bernd Schmidt > Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2011 10:51:56 +0100 > On 11/11/11 20:13, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote: > > AFAICT, your patch has got sufficiently testing now (on three > > targets to boot) to be considered safe to check in. Or is > > something amiss? > > > > (If it's the unchecked code q

Re: Revert "PowerPC shrink-wrap support 3 of 3"

On 11/11/11 20:13, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote: > AFAICT, your patch has got sufficiently testing now (on three > targets to boot) to be considered safe to check in. Or is > something amiss? > > (If it's the unchecked code quality you mentioned, that can be > just as well dealt with having the tree

Re: Revert "PowerPC shrink-wrap support 3 of 3"

> From: Hans-Peter Nilsson > Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2011 18:52:39 +0100 > > From: Hans-Peter Nilsson > > Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2011 15:12:54 +0100 > > > > From: Bernd Schmidt > > > Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2011 14:29:04 +0100 > > > > > HP, can you run full tests? > > > > Cross-test to cris-elf in progress.

Re: Revert "PowerPC shrink-wrap support 3 of 3"

On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 02:29:04PM +0100, Bernd Schmidt wrote: > On 11/10/11 13:14, Richard Guenther wrote: > > Fair enough. You can count me as "one" then, and I'll defer to Bernd > > to either provide a fix or ack the revert. > > I'm trying to track it down. > > In 189r.outof_cfglayout, we hav

Re: Revert "PowerPC shrink-wrap support 3 of 3"

> From: Hans-Peter Nilsson > Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2011 15:12:54 +0100 > > From: Bernd Schmidt > > Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2011 14:29:04 +0100 > > > HP, can you run full tests? > > Cross-test to cris-elf in progress. > Thanks! Works, no regressions compared to before the breakage (r181187). Thanks! Ac

Re: Revert "PowerPC shrink-wrap support 3 of 3"

> From: Bernd Schmidt > Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2011 14:29:04 +0100 > HP, can you run full tests? Cross-test to cris-elf in progress. Thanks! brgds, H-P

Re: Revert "PowerPC shrink-wrap support 3 of 3"

On 11/10/11 13:14, Richard Guenther wrote: > Fair enough. You can count me as "one" then, and I'll defer to Bernd > to either provide a fix or ack the revert. I'm trying to track it down. In 189r.outof_cfglayout, we have (insn 31 33 35 3 (use (reg/i:SI 0 r0)) ../../../../baseline-trunk/libstdc+

Re: Revert "PowerPC shrink-wrap support 3 of 3"

On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 12:43 PM, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote: >> From: Richard Guenther >> Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2011 12:22:56 +0100 > >> On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 11:38 AM, Hans-Peter Nilsson >> wrote: >> >> From: Hans-Peter Nilsson >> >> Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2011 09:55:59 +0100 >> > >> >> > From: Alan Mo

Re: Revert "PowerPC shrink-wrap support 3 of 3"

> From: Richard Guenther > Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2011 12:22:56 +0100 > On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 11:38 AM, Hans-Peter Nilsson > wrote: > >> From: Hans-Peter Nilsson > >> Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2011 09:55:59 +0100 > > > >> > From: Alan Modra > >> > Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2011 16:33:40 +0100 > >> > >> > On Tue, N

Re: Revert "PowerPC shrink-wrap support 3 of 3"

On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 11:38 AM, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote: >> From: Hans-Peter Nilsson >> Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2011 09:55:59 +0100 > >> > From: Alan Modra >> > Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2011 16:33:40 +0100 >> >> > On Tue, Nov 01, 2011 at 12:57:22AM +1030, Alan Modra wrote: >> >> >         * function.c (bb_a

Revert "PowerPC shrink-wrap support 3 of 3"

> From: Hans-Peter Nilsson > Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2011 09:55:59 +0100 > > From: Alan Modra > > Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2011 16:33:40 +0100 > > > On Tue, Nov 01, 2011 at 12:57:22AM +1030, Alan Modra wrote: > > > * function.c (bb_active_p): Delete. > > (dup_block_and_redirect, active_insn_b

Re: PowerPC shrink-wrap support 3 of 3

> From: Alan Modra > Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2011 16:33:40 +0100 > On Tue, Nov 01, 2011 at 12:57:22AM +1030, Alan Modra wrote: > * function.c (bb_active_p): Delete. > (dup_block_and_redirect, active_insn_between): New functions. > (convert_jumps_to_returns, emit_return_for_exit)

Re: PowerPC shrink-wrap support 3 of 3

On Wed, Nov 02, 2011 at 02:03:40AM +1030, Alan Modra wrote: > Bootstrapped and regression tested powerpc-linux. OK to apply? > (And I won't be posting any more versions of the patch until this is > reviewed. Please excuse me for spamming the list.) Looks reasonable to me, appart from > *

Re: PowerPC shrink-wrap support 3 of 3

On Tue, Nov 01, 2011 at 12:57:22AM +1030, Alan Modra wrote: > Bits left to do > - limit size of duplicated tails Done here. Also fixes a hole in that I took no notice of targetm.cannot_copy_insn_p when duplicating tails. One interesting result is that the tail duplication actually reduces the te

Re: PowerPC shrink-wrap support 3 of 3

So I'm at the point where I'm reasonably happy with this work. This patch doesn't do anything particularly clever regarding our shrink-wrap implementation. We still only insert one copy of the prologue, and one of the epilogue in thread_prologue_and_epilogue. All it really does is replaces Bernd'

Re: PowerPC shrink-wrap support 3 of 3

On Thu, Oct 27, 2011 at 12:24:46AM +1030, Alan Modra wrote: > more code than duplicating epilogues. From what I've seen, the > duplicate tails are generally very small. I guess I should dump out > some info so we can get a better idea. There were 545 occurrences of shrink-wrap in the gcc/ dir fo

Re: PowerPC shrink-wrap support 3 of 3

On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 03:59:36PM +0200, Bernd Schmidt wrote: > On 10/26/11 15:54, Alan Modra wrote: > > I guess the tradeoff between the classic shrink-wrap epilogue scheme > > and my duplicate tail idea is whether duplicating tail blocks adds > > more code than duplicating epilogues. From what

Re: PowerPC shrink-wrap support 3 of 3

On 10/26/11 15:54, Alan Modra wrote: > On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 03:01:01PM +0200, Bernd Schmidt wrote: >> On 10/26/11 14:27, Alan Modra wrote: >>> Committed revision 180522. It turns out that shrink-wrapping isn't as >>> effective as it used to be with the 20110915 based sources I was using >>> ori

Re: PowerPC shrink-wrap support 3 of 3

On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 03:01:01PM +0200, Bernd Schmidt wrote: > On 10/26/11 14:27, Alan Modra wrote: > > Committed revision 180522. It turns out that shrink-wrapping isn't as > > effective as it used to be with the 20110915 based sources I was using > > originally. povray Ray_In_Bound no longer

Re: PowerPC shrink-wrap support 3 of 3

On 10/26/11 14:27, Alan Modra wrote: > Committed revision 180522. It turns out that shrink-wrapping isn't as > effective as it used to be with the 20110915 based sources I was using > originally. povray Ray_In_Bound no longer gets the benefit of shrink > wrap, likely due to some cfg optimization.

Re: PowerPC shrink-wrap support 3 of 3

On Sun, Oct 16, 2011 at 02:51:01PM -0400, David Edelsohn wrote: > The patch is okay, although I am not thrilled about the need to change > the register allocation order. Committed revision 180522. It turns out that shrink-wrapping isn't as effective as it used to be with the 20110915 based source

Re: PowerPC shrink-wrap support 3 of 3

On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 11:47 AM, Alan Modra wrote: >        * config/rs6000/rs6000.c (rs6000_make_savres_rtx): Delete unneeded >        declaration. >        (rs6000_emit_stack_reset): Only return insn emitted when it adjusts sp. >        (rs6000_make_savres_rtx): Rename to rs6000_emit_savres_rt

Re: PowerPC shrink-wrap support 3 of 3

This supercedes http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-09/msg01004.html and http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-09/msg01593.html, fixing the two regressions introduced by those patches. The first patch is unchanged except to leave all the out-of-line restore functions using "return" rather than

Re: PowerPC shrink-wrap support 3 of 3

On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 02:15:24AM +0200, Bernd Schmidt wrote: > That looks perfectly reasonable, and even if it is ordered in the way > shown above, dwarf2cfi still should be able to deal with it if the > prologue and epilogue are annotated correctly. Here I was thinking that it was someone else'

Re: PowerPC shrink-wrap support 3 of 3

On 09/27/11 02:11, Alan Modra wrote: > On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 12:39:36AM +0200, Bernd Schmidt wrote: >> On 09/27/11 00:32, Alan Modra wrote: >>> On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 11:22:54PM +0930, Alan Modra wrote: Two regressions appeared due to a problem in the shrink-wrap code. >>> >>> These two. >>

Re: PowerPC shrink-wrap support 3 of 3

On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 12:39:36AM +0200, Bernd Schmidt wrote: > On 09/27/11 00:32, Alan Modra wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 11:22:54PM +0930, Alan Modra wrote: > >> Two regressions appeared due to a problem in the shrink-wrap code. > > > > These two. > > +FAIL: g++.dg/torture/pr46111.C -O1

Re: PowerPC shrink-wrap support 3 of 3

On 09/27/11 00:32, Alan Modra wrote: > On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 11:22:54PM +0930, Alan Modra wrote: >> Two regressions appeared due to a problem in the shrink-wrap code. > > These two. > +FAIL: g++.dg/torture/pr46111.C -O1 (internal compiler error) > +FAIL: gcc.dg/autopar/pr46099.c (internal comp

Re: PowerPC shrink-wrap support 3 of 3

On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 11:22:54PM +0930, Alan Modra wrote: > Two regressions appeared due to a problem in the shrink-wrap code. These two. +FAIL: g++.dg/torture/pr46111.C -O1 (internal compiler error) +FAIL: gcc.dg/autopar/pr46099.c (internal compiler error) Both "internal compiler error: in m

Re: PowerPC shrink-wrap support 3 of 3

This patch fixes an issue that limit opportunities for shrink-wrapping on PowerPC. The rs6000 REG_ALLOC_ORDER chooses r0 as the very first gpr to use in code, with r11 also having high priority. This means it is quite likely that r0 or r11 is live on the edge chosen for shrink-wrapping. That's u

PowerPC shrink-wrap support 3 of 3

Finally, the powerpc backend changes. These are mostly just mechanical. I'll note that we need both "simple_return" and "return" variants of the conditional returns because they can only be used when no epilogue is required. The "return" variant must use direct_return() as a predicate to check t