public inbox for gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com>
To: Jeff Law <law@redhat.com>
Cc: Ilya Enkovich <enkovich.gnu@gmail.com>,
	       Vladimir Makarov <vmakarov@redhat.com>,
	gcc@gnu.org,        gcc-patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>,
	       Evgeny Stupachenko <evstupac@gmail.com>,
	       Richard Biener <richard.guenther@gmail.com>,
	       Uros Bizjak <ubizjak@gmail.com>,
	Petr Machata <pmachata@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: Enable EBX for x86 in 32bits PIC code
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2014 11:09:00 -0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20140929110856.GD17454@tucnak.redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <542335AC.9010707@redhat.com>

On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 03:20:44PM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 09/24/14 14:32, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
> >2014-09-24 19:27 GMT+04:00 Jeff Law <law@redhat.com>:
> >>On 09/24/14 00:56, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
> 
> >>>
> >>>After register allocation we have no idea where GOT address is and
> >>>therefore delegitimize_address target hook becomes less efficient and
> >>>cannot remove UNSPECs. That's what I see now when build GCC with patch
> >>>applied:
> >>
> >>In theory this shouldn't be too hard to fix.
> >>
> >>I haven't looked at the code, but it might be something looking explicitly
> >>for ebx by register #, or something similar.  Which case within
> >>delegitimize_address isn't firing as it should after your changes?
> >
> >It is the case I had to fix:
> >
> >@@ -14415,7 +14433,8 @@ ix86_delegitimize_address (rtx x)
> >          ...
> >          movl foo@GOTOFF(%ecx), %edx
> >          in which case we return (%ecx - %ebx) + foo.  */
> >-      if (pic_offset_table_rtx)
> >+      if (pic_offset_table_rtx
> >+         && (!reload_completed || !ix86_use_pseudo_pic_reg ()))
> >          result = gen_rtx_PLUS (Pmode, gen_rtx_MINUS (Pmode, copy_rtx (addend),
> >                                                      pic_offset_table_rtx),
> >                                result);
> >
> >Originally if there is a UNSPEC_GOTOFFSET but no EBX usage then we
> >just remove this UNSPEC and substract EBX value.  With pseudo PIC reg
> >we should use PIC register instead of EBX but it is unclear what to
> >use after register allocation.
> What's the RTL before & after allocation?  Feel free to just pass along the
> dump files for sum_r4 that you referenced in a prior message.

I wonder if during/after reload we just couldn't look at
ORIGINAL_REGNO of hard regs if ix86_use_pseudo_pic_reg.  Or is that
the other case, where you don't have any PIC register replacement around,
and want to subtract something?  Perhaps in that case we could just
subtract the value of _GLOBAL_OFFSET_TABLE_ symbol if we have nothing better
around.

	Jakub

  reply	other threads:[~2014-09-29 11:09 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 49+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
     [not found] <CAOvf_xxsQ_oYGqNAVQ1+BW+CuD3mzebZ2xma0jpF=WfyZMCRCA@mail.gmail.com>
     [not found] ` <CAFiYyc1mFtTezkTJORmJJq+yht=qPSwiN7KDn19+bSuSdaqvMQ@mail.gmail.com>
     [not found]   ` <CAOvf_xyeVeg2oB9Xxz8RMEQ6gyfJY5whd9s4ygoAAEaMU9efnA@mail.gmail.com>
     [not found]     ` <20140707114750.GB31640@tucnak.redhat.com>
     [not found]       ` <CAMbmDYZV_fx0jxmKHhLsC2pJ7pDzuu6toEAH72izOdpq6KGyfg@mail.gmail.com>
2014-08-22 12:21         ` Ilya Enkovich
2014-08-23  1:47           ` Hans-Peter Nilsson
2014-08-25  9:25             ` Ilya Enkovich
2014-08-25 11:24               ` Hans-Peter Nilsson
2014-08-25 11:43                 ` Ilya Enkovich
2014-08-25 15:09           ` Vladimir Makarov
2014-08-26  7:49             ` Ilya Enkovich
2014-08-26  8:57               ` Ilya Enkovich
2014-08-26 15:25                 ` Vladimir Makarov
2014-08-26 21:42                   ` Ilya Enkovich
2014-08-27 20:19                     ` Vladimir Makarov
2014-08-28  8:28                       ` Ilya Enkovich
2014-08-29  6:47                         ` Ilya Enkovich
2014-09-02 14:29                           ` Vladimir Makarov
2014-09-03 20:19                           ` Vladimir Makarov
     [not found]                             ` <0EFAB2BDD0F67E4FB6CCC8B9F87D756969B3A89D@IRSMSX101.ger.corp.intel.com>
2014-09-09 16:43                               ` Vladimir Makarov
2014-09-11 19:57                                 ` Jeff Law
2014-09-23 13:54                             ` Ilya Enkovich
2014-09-23 14:23                               ` Uros Bizjak
2014-09-23 15:59                                 ` Jeff Law
2014-09-23 14:34                               ` Jakub Jelinek
2014-09-23 15:59                                 ` Petr Machata
2014-09-23 16:00                                 ` Jeff Law
2014-09-23 16:03                                   ` Jakub Jelinek
2014-09-23 16:10                                     ` Jeff Law
2014-09-24  6:56                                       ` Ilya Enkovich
2014-09-24 15:27                                         ` Jeff Law
2014-09-24 20:32                                           ` Ilya Enkovich
2014-09-24 21:20                                             ` Jeff Law
2014-09-29 11:09                                               ` Jakub Jelinek [this message]
2014-10-21 16:05                                                 ` [PATCH] Improve i?86 address delegitimization after 32-bit pic changes (PR target/63542) Jakub Jelinek
2014-10-22  2:02                                                   ` Jeff Law
2014-11-24 15:57                                                   ` H.J. Lu
2014-08-27 21:39                     ` Enable EBX for x86 in 32bits PIC code Jeff Law
2014-08-28  8:37                       ` Ilya Enkovich
2014-08-28 12:43                         ` Uros Bizjak
2014-08-28 12:54                           ` Ilya Enkovich
2014-08-28 13:08                             ` Uros Bizjak
2014-08-28 13:29                               ` Ilya Enkovich
2014-08-28 16:25                                 ` Uros Bizjak
2014-08-29 18:56                         ` Jeff Law
2014-08-25 17:30           ` Jeff Law
2014-08-28 13:01           ` Uros Bizjak
2014-08-28 13:13             ` Ilya Enkovich
2014-08-28 18:30             ` Florian Weimer
2014-08-29 18:48             ` Jeff Law
2014-08-28 18:58           ` Uros Bizjak
2014-08-29  6:51             ` Ilya Enkovich
2014-08-29 18:45             ` Jeff Law

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=20140929110856.GD17454@tucnak.redhat.com \
    --to=jakub@redhat.com \
    --cc=enkovich.gnu@gmail.com \
    --cc=evstupac@gmail.com \
    --cc=gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org \
    --cc=gcc@gnu.org \
    --cc=law@redhat.com \
    --cc=pmachata@redhat.com \
    --cc=richard.guenther@gmail.com \
    --cc=ubizjak@gmail.com \
    --cc=vmakarov@redhat.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).