public inbox for gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@suse.com>
To: "Jakub Jelinek" <jakub@redhat.com>,"Jeff Law" <law@redhat.com>
Cc: <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>,<hjl.tools@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: avoid alignment of static variables affecting stack's
Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2014 09:11:00 -0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <544A31900200007800041C83@mail.emea.novell.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <5449454A.9050502@redhat.com>

>>> On 23.10.14 at 20:13, <law@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 10/23/14 01:09, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>>> On 23.10.14 at 08:50, <jakub@redhat.com> wrote:
>>> On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 07:30:27AM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>> Function (or more narrow) scope static variables (as well as others not
>>>> placed on the stack) should also not have any effect on the stack
>>>> alignment. I noticed the issue first with Linux'es dynamic_pr_debug()
>>>> construct using an 8-byte aligned sub-file-scope local variable.
>>>>
>>>> According to my checking bad behavior started with 4.6.x (4.5.3 was
>>>> still okay), but generated code got quite a bit worse as of 4.9.0.
>>>
>>> If the static/external var has BLKmode, then perhaps it is safe, but I
>>> wonder about other vars, say vectors etc.  Such vars are most likely
>>> loaded from their memory location, and if for some reason that needs to be
>>> spilled again, stack realignment would not be able to do that.
>>> Or do we inspect the IL and for any pseudos with modes needing larger
>>> alignment we adjust the dynamic stack realignment fields?
>>
>> I don't know, but it would seem to me that this ought to happen
>> anyway: If the pseudo holds the result of some computation
>> other than a simple load from memory and needs spilling, the same
>> would apply afaict.
> 
> For something in static storage, this seems OK.  However, I think a hard 
> register variable ought to be left alone -- even if we can't spill it to 
> a stack slot today, there's a reasonable chance we might add that 
> capability in the future.

Hmm, but then wouldn't it need to be the code generating the spill
that's responsible for enforcing suitable alignment? I can certainly
re-submit without the hard register special cased (as it would still
fix the original issue I'm seeing), but it feels wrong to do so.

Jan

  reply	other threads:[~2014-10-24  9:01 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2014-10-23  6:50 Jan Beulich
2014-10-23  6:54 ` Jakub Jelinek
2014-10-23  7:11   ` Jan Beulich
2014-10-23 18:14     ` Jeff Law
2014-10-24  9:11       ` Jan Beulich [this message]
2014-10-24  9:12         ` Richard Biener
2014-10-24  9:18           ` Jan Beulich
2014-10-24  9:19           ` Jakub Jelinek
2014-10-24  9:54             ` Richard Biener
2014-10-24 10:16               ` Jan Beulich
2014-10-24 10:42                 ` Richard Biener
2014-10-24 16:42                 ` 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=544A31900200007800041C83@mail.emea.novell.com \
    --to=jbeulich@suse.com \
    --cc=gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org \
    --cc=hjl.tools@gmail.com \
    --cc=jakub@redhat.com \
    --cc=law@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).