From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <rguenther@suse.de>
Received: from smtp-out2.suse.de (smtp-out2.suse.de [195.135.220.29])
 by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F3D343858C20
 for <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>; Wed,  9 Mar 2022 07:18:39 +0000 (GMT)
DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org F3D343858C20
Received: from relay2.suse.de (relay2.suse.de [149.44.160.134])
 by smtp-out2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1A0861F381;
 Wed,  9 Mar 2022 07:18:39 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from murzim.suse.de (murzim.suse.de [10.160.4.192])
 (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by relay2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F123EA3B83;
 Wed,  9 Mar 2022 07:18:38 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2022 08:18:38 +0100 (CET)
From: Richard Biener <rguenther@suse.de>
To: "H.J. Lu" <hjl.tools@gmail.com>
cc: Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com>, Uros Bizjak <ubizjak@gmail.com>, 
 Jeff Law <jeffreyalaw@gmail.com>, gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: Define LIBGCC2_UNWIND_ATTRIBUTE on ia32
 [PR104781]
In-Reply-To: <CAMe9rOrmJih2TRxd8VkJikRD34TMKGEbd73D+kHQx04ZX5CnbQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <6ropo03n-18ns-p21-p717-oo9r6nss789p@fhfr.qr>
References: <20220307150628.68146-1-hjl.tools@gmail.com>
 <YicutzHS7vFn9x5n@tucnak> <Yic6wxdaLDVd3/oE@tucnak> <YidMOvVHLWBwgBxz@tucnak>
 <CAMe9rOq=+e1fD7edAwF+XMARCePvbJ-SN1=4BdaX3P=uXYUtLQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <Yid6OgTq8uH+Ze4O@tucnak>
 <CAMe9rOosJO5wz5=ZibD-sL_JL+uAoc+-m4B4BT8AK1g5jc619g@mail.gmail.com>
 <YieT0l9915XwHt7c@tucnak>
 <CAMe9rOrmJih2TRxd8VkJikRD34TMKGEbd73D+kHQx04ZX5CnbQ@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, DKIM_SIGNED,
 DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, DKIM_VALID_EF, SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS, TXREP,
 T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on
 server2.sourceware.org
X-BeenThere: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Gcc-patches mailing list <gcc-patches.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/options/gcc-patches>,
 <mailto:gcc-patches-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-patches-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gcc-patches>,
 <mailto:gcc-patches-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 09 Mar 2022 07:18:41 -0000

On Tue, 8 Mar 2022, H.J. Lu wrote:

> On Tue, Mar 8, 2022 at 9:35 AM Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Mar 08, 2022 at 08:09:25AM -0800, H.J. Lu wrote:
> > > > Ok.  So, what do you think about replacing the libgcc/ part of your patch
> > > > with that
> > > > /* __builtin_eh_return can't handle stack realignment, so disable SSE in
> > > >    32-bit libgcc functions that call it.  */
> > > > #ifndef __x86_64__
> > > > #define LIBGCC2_UNWIND_ATTRIBUTE __attribute__((target ("no-sse")))
> > > > #endif
> > > > ?
> > >
> > > Yes, it should work.
> >
> > So, how do we move on with this?
> > I can't self-approve my own patch, so can anyone please ack the following
> > provided it passes bootstraps/regtests ({x86_64,i686}-linux) that are
> > currently pending?
> >
> > That can go in independently from your patch, and if it is committed,
> > your V3 patch with the libgcc/ hunks removed is preapproved for trunk.
> >
> > 2022-03-08  Jakub Jelinek  <jakub@redhat.com>
> >
> >         PR target/104781
> >         * config/i386/i386.h (LIBGCC2_UNWIND_ATTRIBUTE): Define for ia32.
> >
> > --- gcc/config/i386/i386.h.jj   2022-02-25 12:06:45.535493490 +0100
> > +++ gcc/config/i386/i386.h      2022-03-08 11:20:43.207043370 +0100
> > @@ -2848,6 +2848,12 @@ extern enum attr_cpu ix86_schedule;
> >  #define NUM_X86_64_MS_CLOBBERED_REGS 12
> >  #endif
> >
> > +/* __builtin_eh_return can't handle stack realignment, so disable SSE in
> > +   32-bit libgcc functions that call it.  */
> > +#ifndef __x86_64__
> > +#define LIBGCC2_UNWIND_ATTRIBUTE __attribute__((target ("no-sse")))
> > +#endif
> > +
> >  /*
> >  Local variables:
> >  version-control: t
> >
> >
> >         Jakub
> >
> 
> LGTM.

I wonder if this is a good case for general-regs-only instead?  At
least no-sse cannot be functionally equivalent (since then we would
not have needed general-regs-only ...).

Richard.