From: Rich Felker <dalias@libc.org>
To: Segher Boessenkool <segher@kernel.crashing.org>
Cc: Joseph Myers <joseph@codesourcery.com>, gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: Reviving SH FDPIC target
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2015 17:11:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20150913165303.GC17773@brightrain.aerifal.cx> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20150904230415.GA23901@gate.crashing.org>
On Fri, Sep 04, 2015 at 06:04:15PM -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 04, 2015 at 04:16:40PM -0400, Rich Felker wrote:
> > One thing I've noticed that's odd is that gcc -mfdpic -fPIC produces
> > different (less efficient) code from just gcc -mfdpic, which seems
> > wrong, but agrees with sh.c which has a number of checks for flag_pic
> > not matched with a TARGET_FDPIC check.
>
> Generic code tests flag_pic in important places as well.
>
> > I'm thinking all of these
> > should either be flag_pic||TARGET_PIC or flag_pic&&!TARGET_FDPIC,
> > depending on whether the code applies to all PIC or is specific to the
> > non-FDPIC PIC model where r12 is call-saved. Does this sound correct?
> > I think we need spurious -fPIC to work (although it could be handled
> > with spec magic) and not pessimize code, since most library builds
> > will use -fPIC.
>
> If you never want -fPIC (or -fpic) if fdpic is enabled, you can disable
> it (in sh_option_override)?
It turns out that with !flag_pic, gcc is generating broken code and/or
ICE, and this happens even after changing all the remaining flag_pic
tests in sh.c to flag_pic||TARGET_FDPIC. There are a few more in sh.md
I didn't try changing but they did not look relevant; the ICE came
via expand_binop in prepare_move_operands. Before I look at it
further, is there any reason to expect !flag_pic in the generic code
to break things when the target-specific code has PIC-like
constraints?
For now I just made sh_option_override force flag_pic when
TARGET_FDPIC is set. Note that flag_pic by itself is equivalent to
-fPIE; -fPIC also sets flag_shlib which affects other things like TLS
model and binds_locally interpretation. This seems like a viable
solution (and I got rid of the suboptimal codegen by fixing the
condition in sh_function_ok_for_sibcall so that flag_pic doesn't
preclude sibcalls when TARGET_FDPIC is set) but I'd still like to
figure out why gcc is breaking without flag_pic...
Rich
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-09-13 16:53 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-09-02 18:36 Rich Felker
2015-09-02 20:00 ` Joseph Myers
2015-09-02 21:14 ` Rich Felker
2015-09-03 4:33 ` Rich Felker
2015-09-03 14:59 ` Joseph Myers
2015-09-03 15:59 ` Rich Felker
2015-09-04 20:22 ` Rich Felker
2015-09-04 23:08 ` Segher Boessenkool
2015-09-05 12:37 ` Rich Felker
2015-09-13 17:11 ` Rich Felker [this message]
2015-09-11 4:05 ` Rich Felker
2015-09-11 8:02 ` Rich Felker
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=20150913165303.GC17773@brightrain.aerifal.cx \
--to=dalias@libc.org \
--cc=gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=joseph@codesourcery.com \
--cc=segher@kernel.crashing.org \
/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).