From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com (mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com [148.163.158.5]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CF8523858CDA; Tue, 27 Sep 2022 05:25:24 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org CF8523858CDA Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.ibm.com Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linux.ibm.com Received: from pps.filterd (m0098417.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.17.1.5/8.17.1.5) with ESMTP id 28R3ELhF020115; Tue, 27 Sep 2022 05:25:24 GMT DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ibm.com; h=from : to : cc : subject : in-reply-to : references : date : message-id : content-type : mime-version; s=pp1; bh=az4X9bF5Ih7WTTMQEgRC8MIAvdKnEKl4sUX8TJbkDN0=; b=T7b61rPFjB3wHCGJ7iapSsjG9VmZNOmw+70vX161+1WMzXCIcT6MAi8UYnQAN6PCz1Pd 1OUDc7gnX+wHMHgHQH1bzyIBISYUWtFXsTAQURKUiqloyPBBwdRsWHwGxfjID9b+a1O0 +QRkyrdc4N/xVcoY/jBhBiaTG8fijwBg0NTy7qxsRqaKx3W6abY8fc/TlX0DR97oNQN6 O/mUINBofmJAd6yp8UHPR5sMPQ2p5fQU/s8eUqKBeo8K1ebZrXzA1lxghe5wnSS1Ahh6 n5i1SBGXrsDClLbC674B9UvMwAIwQ/ylDmZPEuwhoVrw9ELpd6j9Edq9jWLcbwK5iWlQ VA== Received: from pps.reinject (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (PPS) with ESMTPS id 3jus3hjtd5-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 27 Sep 2022 05:25:24 +0000 Received: from m0098417.ppops.net (m0098417.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by pps.reinject (8.17.1.5/8.17.1.5) with ESMTP id 28R5LXde021892; Tue, 27 Sep 2022 05:25:23 GMT Received: from ppma05wdc.us.ibm.com (1b.90.2fa9.ip4.static.sl-reverse.com [169.47.144.27]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (PPS) with ESMTPS id 3jus3hjtcu-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 27 Sep 2022 05:25:23 +0000 Received: from pps.filterd (ppma05wdc.us.ibm.com [127.0.0.1]) by ppma05wdc.us.ibm.com (8.16.1.2/8.16.1.2) with SMTP id 28R5LDlx025246; Tue, 27 Sep 2022 05:25:22 GMT Received: from b03cxnp07029.gho.boulder.ibm.com (b03cxnp07029.gho.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.130.16]) by ppma05wdc.us.ibm.com with ESMTP id 3jssh9jjp8-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 27 Sep 2022 05:25:22 +0000 Received: from smtpav03.dal12v.mail.ibm.com ([9.208.128.129]) by b03cxnp07029.gho.boulder.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id 28R5PL3j18023134 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Tue, 27 Sep 2022 05:25:21 GMT Received: from smtpav03.dal12v.mail.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 64F7D5806A; Tue, 27 Sep 2022 05:25:21 +0000 (GMT) Received: from smtpav03.dal12v.mail.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 35C2458075; Tue, 27 Sep 2022 05:25:21 +0000 (GMT) Received: from pike (unknown [9.5.12.127]) by smtpav03.dal12v.mail.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS; Tue, 27 Sep 2022 05:25:21 +0000 (GMT) From: Jiufu Guo To: "Kewen.Lin" Cc: dje.gcc@gmail.com, segher@kernel.crashing.org, linkw@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: [PATCH V3] rs6000: cannot_force_const_mem for HIGH code rtx[PR106460] In-Reply-To: (Kewen Lin's message of "Mon, 26 Sep 2022 14:21:11 +0800") References: <20220907070842.63722-1-guojiufu@linux.ibm.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.2 (gnu/linux) Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2022 13:25:18 +0800 Message-ID: <7eleq5s81t.fsf@pike.rch.stglabs.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 X-Proofpoint-GUID: PDl7la7ZYrN8rhSGrWTeOutGK7kpFBCz X-Proofpoint-ORIG-GUID: 2YGb7rLTtjHSWbAHqRvqYzDVVKWscisu X-Proofpoint-UnRewURL: 0 URL was un-rewritten MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=baseguard engine=ICAP:2.0.205,Aquarius:18.0.895,Hydra:6.0.528,FMLib:17.11.122.1 definitions=2022-09-26_11,2022-09-22_02,2022-06-22_01 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 clxscore=1015 impostorscore=0 adultscore=0 lowpriorityscore=0 bulkscore=0 phishscore=0 suspectscore=0 mlxscore=0 spamscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2209130000 definitions=main-2209270028 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-12.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_EF,GIT_PATCH_0,KAM_SHORT,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,TXREP autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on server2.sourceware.org List-Id: Hi, "Kewen.Lin" writes: > Hi Jeff, > > on 2022/9/7 15:08, Jiufu Guo via Gcc-patches wrote: >> Hi, >> >> As the issue in PR106460, a rtx 'high:DI (symbol_ref:DI ("var_48")' is tried >> to store into constant pool and ICE occur. But actually, this rtx represents >> partial address and can not be put into a .rodata section. >> >> This patch updates rs6000_cannot_force_const_mem to return true for rtx(s) with >> HIGH code, because these rtx(s) indicate part of address and are not ok for >> constant pool. >> >> Below are some examples: >> (high:DI (const:DI (plus:DI (symbol_ref:DI ("xx") (const_int 12 [0xc]))))) >> (high:DI (symbol_ref:DI ("var_1")..))) >> >> This patch updated the previous patch, and drafted an test case which ICE >> without the patch, and assoicated with one PR. >> https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2022-July/597712.html >> This patch also updated the message for previous patch V2. >> >> I would ask help to review this patch one more time. >> >> Bootstrap and regtest pass on ppc64 and ppc64le. >> Is this ok for trunk. >> >> BR, >> Jeff(Jiufu) >> >> PR target/106460 >> >> gcc/ChangeLog: >> >> * config/rs6000/rs6000.cc (rs6000_cannot_force_const_mem): Return true >> for HIGH code rtx. >> >> gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog: >> >> * gcc.target/powerpc/pr106460.c: New test. >> --- >> gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.cc | 7 +++++-- >> gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/pr106460.c | 11 +++++++++++ >> 2 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >> create mode 100644 gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/pr106460.c >> >> diff --git a/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.cc b/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.cc >> index 2f3146e56f8..04e3a393147 100644 >> --- a/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.cc >> +++ b/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.cc >> @@ -9643,8 +9643,11 @@ rs6000_init_stack_protect_guard (void) >> static bool >> rs6000_cannot_force_const_mem (machine_mode mode ATTRIBUTE_UNUSED, rtx x) >> { >> - if (GET_CODE (x) == HIGH >> - && GET_CODE (XEXP (x, 0)) == UNSPEC) >> + /* If GET_CODE (x) is HIGH, the 'X' represets the high part of a symbol_ref. >> + It indicates partial address, which can not be put into a constant pool. >> + e.g. (high:DI (unspec:DI [(symbol_ref/u:DI ("*.LC0")..) >> + (high:DI (symbol_ref:DI ("var")..)). */ > > Nit: Maybe it's good to align these two "(high:DI ... ? OK, thanks! > >> + if (GET_CODE (x) == HIGH) >> return true; >> >> /* A TLS symbol in the TOC cannot contain a sum. */ >> diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/pr106460.c b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/pr106460.c >> new file mode 100644 >> index 00000000000..dfaffcb6e28 >> --- /dev/null >> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/pr106460.c >> @@ -0,0 +1,11 @@ > > Need a power10_ok effective target here. > > /* { dg-require-effective-target power10_ok } */ OK, will add this. > >> +/* { dg-options "-O1 -mdejagnu-cpu=power10" } */ > > Nit: As Segher's review on one of my patches, O2 is preferred against O1 if it > still works for this issue. The point is to avoid some related optimization > (routines or passes) to be disabled at O1 one day and this becomes ineffective. > Yeap. While, for this case, the ICE is not reproduciable with -O2. So, -O1 is used here. BR, Jeff (Jiufu) > BR, > Kewen