public inbox for gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Julian Brown <julian@codesourcery.com>
To: Richard Earnshaw <rearnsha@arm.com>
Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, paul@codesourcery.com,
	Ramana Radhakrishnan <ramana.radhakrishnan@linaro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH, ARM] Fix ABI for double-precision helpers on single-float-only CPUs
Date: Fri, 03 Jun 2011 17:41:00 -0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20110603184102.54707571@rex.config> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1307028902.17090.6.camel@e102346-lin.cambridge.arm.com>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1335 bytes --]

On Thu, 02 Jun 2011 16:35:01 +0100
Richard Earnshaw <rearnsha@arm.com> wrote:

> I see Paul has already approved this, but I've just spotted one
> potential problem that might cause latent bugs sometime in the future.
> 
> The code to register the libcalls is only run once, the first time we
> try to look up a libcall.  If we ever end up allowing dynamic changing
> of CPU and optimization options, not registering the other libcalls
> will lead to subtle problems at run time.  I suggest that these
> functions be unconditionally added along with the other libcalls.

Done.

> I also don't understand why all the tests are needed in
> arm_init_cumulative_args?  Surely arm_libcall_uses_aapcs_base() will
> already have run that test.

I did some archaeology to try to figure out why things were like that
(the patch was written a while ago) -- and yeah, it looks like it's
completely unnecessary to have those tests in arm_init_cumulative_args.
That bit of code was refactored a while ago, and it looks like the
patch wasn't ever updated properly. My mistake!

I'm re-testing the attached version.

Thanks,

Julian

ChangeLog

    gcc/
    * config/arm/arm.c (arm_libcall_uses_aapcs_base): Use correct ABI
    for double-precision helper functions in hard-float mode if only
    single-precision arithmetic is supported in hardware.

[-- Attachment #2: hard-float-double-prec-abi-fix-3.diff --]
[-- Type: text/x-patch, Size: 1990 bytes --]

commit 8084eeee248e648e3276b91a957f667c299f84e1
Author: Julian Brown <julian@henry7.codesourcery.com>
Date:   Fri Jun 3 04:34:23 2011 -0700

    VFP ABI fix for double-precision helpers on single-only processors.

diff --git a/gcc/config/arm/arm.c b/gcc/config/arm/arm.c
index 057f9ba..a1d009b 100644
--- a/gcc/config/arm/arm.c
+++ b/gcc/config/arm/arm.c
@@ -3345,6 +3345,28 @@ arm_libcall_uses_aapcs_base (const_rtx libcall)
 		   convert_optab_libfunc (sfix_optab, DImode, SFmode));
       add_libcall (libcall_htab,
 		   convert_optab_libfunc (ufix_optab, DImode, SFmode));
+
+      /* Values from double-precision helper functions are returned in core
+	 registers if the selected core only supports single-precision
+	 arithmetic, even if we are using the hard-float ABI.  The same is
+	 true for single-precision helpers, but we will never be using the
+	 hard-float ABI on a CPU which doesn't support single-precision
+	 operations in hardware.  */
+      add_libcall (libcall_htab, optab_libfunc (add_optab, DFmode));
+      add_libcall (libcall_htab, optab_libfunc (sdiv_optab, DFmode));
+      add_libcall (libcall_htab, optab_libfunc (smul_optab, DFmode));
+      add_libcall (libcall_htab, optab_libfunc (neg_optab, DFmode));
+      add_libcall (libcall_htab, optab_libfunc (sub_optab, DFmode));
+      add_libcall (libcall_htab, optab_libfunc (eq_optab, DFmode));
+      add_libcall (libcall_htab, optab_libfunc (lt_optab, DFmode));
+      add_libcall (libcall_htab, optab_libfunc (le_optab, DFmode));
+      add_libcall (libcall_htab, optab_libfunc (ge_optab, DFmode));
+      add_libcall (libcall_htab, optab_libfunc (gt_optab, DFmode));
+      add_libcall (libcall_htab, optab_libfunc (unord_optab, DFmode));
+      add_libcall (libcall_htab, convert_optab_libfunc (sext_optab, DFmode,
+							SFmode));
+      add_libcall (libcall_htab, convert_optab_libfunc (trunc_optab, SFmode,
+							DFmode));
     }
 
   return libcall && htab_find (libcall_htab, libcall) != NULL;

  reply	other threads:[~2011-06-03 17:41 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2011-05-27 17:50 Julian Brown
2011-06-02 13:17 ` Paul Brook
2011-06-02 15:35 ` Richard Earnshaw
2011-06-03 17:41   ` Julian Brown [this message]
2011-06-06 16:07     ` Richard Earnshaw
2011-06-14  4:09     ` Ramana Radhakrishnan

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=20110603184102.54707571@rex.config \
    --to=julian@codesourcery.com \
    --cc=gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org \
    --cc=paul@codesourcery.com \
    --cc=ramana.radhakrishnan@linaro.org \
    --cc=rearnsha@arm.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).