From: Indu Bhagat <indu.bhagat@oracle.com>
To: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>
Cc: binutils@sourceware.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH,V2] gas: x86: ginsn: adjust ginsns for certain lea ops
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2024 15:56:21 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <f7097c3b-471a-444e-8724-5dcd6af6e0ac@oracle.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <2c745a10-04f5-4994-a627-ea434218a823@suse.com>
On 1/23/24 23:51, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 24.01.2024 07:40, Indu Bhagat wrote:
>> @@ -5664,76 +5666,64 @@ x86_ginsn_lea (const symbolS *insn_end_sym)
>> {
>> offsetT src_disp = 0;
>> ginsnS *ginsn = NULL;
>> - unsigned int base_reg;
>> - unsigned int index_reg;
>> + unsigned int src1_reg;
>> + const reg_entry *src1;
>> offsetT index_scale;
>> unsigned int dst_reg;
>>
>> if (!i.index_reg && !i.base_reg)
>> {
>> - /* lea symbol, %rN. */
>> - dst_reg = ginsn_dw2_regnum (i.op[1].regs);
>> - /* TBD_GINSN_INFO_LOSS - Skip encoding information about the symbol. */
>> - ginsn = ginsn_new_mov (insn_end_sym, false,
>> - GINSN_SRC_IMM, 0xf /* arbitrary const. */, 0,
>> - GINSN_DST_REG, dst_reg, 0);
>> + if (i.disp_operands && i.op[0].disps->X_op == O_constant)
>> + {
>> + /* lea const, %rN. */
>> + src_disp = i.op[0].disps->X_add_number;
>> + dst_reg = ginsn_dw2_regnum (i.op[1].regs);
>> + ginsn = ginsn_new_mov (insn_end_sym, false,
>> + GINSN_SRC_IMM, 0, src_disp,
>> + GINSN_DST_REG, dst_reg, 0);
>> + ginsn_set_where (ginsn);
>> + }
>
> Since earlier on you've been mentioning that you primarily target insn
> forms actually in use in existing code, I wonder whether you've ever
> seen any use of this. The same is better (shorter) expressed by MOV,
> and hence I'd expect people to prefer that form. IOW the question here
> is: Is there much value in having this code, rather than simply
> penalizing people bogusly using such by having this case end at the
> common x86_ginsn_unhandled path as well.
>
IMO this is not a useful pattern either for the case when it is better
expressed by a MOV. I have not seen such usages so far, and I dont
expect this to be seen either.
I am OK with removing this handling and default to x86_ginsn_unhandled
code path with code comments here. Makes sense.
>> + /* Skip handling lea symbol, %rN here. Deal with it in the
>> + x86_ginsn_unhandled code path. TBD_GINSN_GEN_NOT_SCFI. */
>> }
>> - else if (i.base_reg && !i.index_reg)
>> + else if ((i.base_reg && !i.index_reg)
>> + || (!i.base_reg && i.index_reg))
>
> I frequently see conditionals like this written this way. Maybe it's
> indeed clearer to a majority; personally I'd prefer the shorter
>
> else if (!i.base_reg != !i.index_reg)
>
> However, considering the earlier if() this is an else-if to, even
>
> else if (!i.base_reg || !i.index_reg)
>
> would also suffice (but as per above that if() may want to go away).
>
OK. I will surely spend a few extra seconds reading this
(!i.base_reg != !i.index_reg)
as compared to the original construct, but I am fine with using it if
that's your preference. I have switched to that expression.
>> {
>> - /* lea -0x2(%base),%dst. */
>> - base_reg = ginsn_dw2_regnum (i.base_reg);
>> - dst_reg = ginsn_dw2_regnum (i.op[1].regs);
>> + /* lea disp(%base) %dst or lea disp(,%index,imm) %dst. */
>
> Would be nice if the missing commas were added here.
>
OK.
>> - if (i.disp_operands)
>> - src_disp = i.op[0].disps->X_add_number;
>> -
>> - if (src_disp)
>> - /* Generate an ADD ginsn. */
>> - ginsn = ginsn_new_add (insn_end_sym, true,
>> - GINSN_SRC_REG, base_reg, 0,
>> - GINSN_SRC_IMM, 0, src_disp,
>> - GINSN_DST_REG, dst_reg, 0);
>> - else
>> - /* Generate a MOV ginsn. */
>> - ginsn = ginsn_new_mov (insn_end_sym, true,
>> - GINSN_SRC_REG, base_reg, 0,
>> - GINSN_DST_REG, dst_reg, 0);
>> - }
>> - else if (!i.base_reg && i.index_reg)
>> - {
>> - /* lea (,%index,imm), %dst. */
>> - /* TBD_GINSN_INFO_LOSS - There is no explicit ginsn multiply operation,
>> - instead use GINSN_TYPE_OTHER. Also, note that info about displacement
>> - is not carried forward either. But this is fine because
>> - GINSN_TYPE_OTHER will cause SCFI pass to bail out any which way if
>> - dest reg is interesting. */
>> index_scale = i.log2_scale_factor;
>> - index_reg = ginsn_dw2_regnum (i.index_reg);
>> + src1 = (i.base_reg) ? i.base_reg : i.index_reg;
>> + src1_reg = ginsn_dw2_regnum (src1);
>
> Since I can't spot any other use of src1, why not simply
>
> src1_reg = ginsn_dw2_regnum (i.base_reg ? i.base_reg : i.index_reg);
>
> ? Otherwise at the very least please omit the pointless parentheses in
> the conditional expression.
>
Will remove the parentheses.
>> dst_reg = ginsn_dw2_regnum (i.op[1].regs);
>> - ginsn = ginsn_new_other (insn_end_sym, true,
>> - GINSN_SRC_REG, index_reg,
>> - GINSN_SRC_IMM, index_scale,
>> - GINSN_DST_REG, dst_reg);
>> - /* FIXME - It seems to make sense to represent a scale factor of 1
>> - correctly here (i.e. not as "other", but rather similar to the
>> - base-without- index case above)? */
>> - }
>> - else
>> - {
>> - /* lea disp(%base,%index,imm) %dst. */
>> - /* TBD_GINSN_INFO_LOSS - Skip adding information about the disp and imm
>> - for index reg. */
>> - base_reg = ginsn_dw2_regnum (i.base_reg);
>> - index_reg = ginsn_dw2_regnum (i.index_reg);
>> - dst_reg = ginsn_dw2_regnum (i.op[1].regs);
>> - /* Generate an GINSN_TYPE_OTHER ginsn. */
>> - ginsn = ginsn_new_other (insn_end_sym, true,
>> - GINSN_SRC_REG, base_reg,
>> - GINSN_SRC_REG, index_reg,
>> - GINSN_DST_REG, dst_reg);
>> - }
>> + /* It makes sense to represent a scale factor of 1 precisely here
>> + (i.e., not using GINSN_TYPE_OTHER, but rather similar to the
>> + base-without-index case). Ignore the case when disp has a symbol
>> + instead. */
>> + if (!index_scale
>> + && (!i.disp_operands
>> + || (i.disp_operands && i.op[0].disps->X_op == O_constant)))
>
> This is functionally identical to the shorter
>
> if (!index_scale
> && (!i.disp_operands || i.op[0].disps->X_op == O_constant))
>
> But: What about any of
>
> lea (%rax,%riz),%rbp
> lea (%rax,4),%rbp
> lea (%rax,%riz,4),%rbp
>
> ?
Current behaviour is:
lea (%rax,%riz),%rbp
ginsn: OTH 0, 0, %r6
lea (%rax,4),%rbp
**** Warning: scale factor of 4 without an index register
ginsn: MOV %r0, %r6
lea (%rax,%riz,4),%rbp
ginsn: OTH 0, 0, %r6
lea sym(,%riz), %rbp
ginsn: OTH 0, 0, %r6
lea (,%riz), %rbp
ginsn: MOV %r4, %r6
(We use DWARF register number 4 {%rsi} in lieu of %riz).
With respect to SCFI correctness, I dont see an issue...
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-01-24 23:56 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-01-24 6:40 Indu Bhagat
2024-01-24 7:51 ` Jan Beulich
2024-01-24 23:56 ` Indu Bhagat [this message]
2024-01-25 7:33 ` Jan Beulich
2024-01-25 8:46 ` Indu Bhagat
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=f7097c3b-471a-444e-8724-5dcd6af6e0ac@oracle.com \
--to=indu.bhagat@oracle.com \
--cc=binutils@sourceware.org \
--cc=jbeulich@suse.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).