From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com [148.163.156.1]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6EAA6385736C; Tue, 26 Jul 2022 06:42:50 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org 6EAA6385736C Received: from pps.filterd (m0098399.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.17.1.5/8.17.1.5) with ESMTP id 26Q6POqM011464; Tue, 26 Jul 2022 06:42:49 GMT Received: from pps.reinject (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (PPS) with ESMTPS id 3hjb018e8y-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 26 Jul 2022 06:42:48 +0000 Received: from m0098399.ppops.net (m0098399.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by pps.reinject (8.17.1.5/8.17.1.5) with ESMTP id 26Q6g2cH014856; Tue, 26 Jul 2022 06:42:48 GMT Received: from ppma03wdc.us.ibm.com (ba.79.3fa9.ip4.static.sl-reverse.com [169.63.121.186]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (PPS) with ESMTPS id 3hjb018e86-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 26 Jul 2022 06:42:48 +0000 Received: from pps.filterd (ppma03wdc.us.ibm.com [127.0.0.1]) by ppma03wdc.us.ibm.com (8.16.1.2/8.16.1.2) with SMTP id 26Q6ZuXl026802; Tue, 26 Jul 2022 06:42:47 GMT Received: from b01cxnp22033.gho.pok.ibm.com (b01cxnp22033.gho.pok.ibm.com [9.57.198.23]) by ppma03wdc.us.ibm.com with ESMTP id 3hg97rs1dw-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 26 Jul 2022 06:42:47 +0000 Received: from b01ledav003.gho.pok.ibm.com (b01ledav003.gho.pok.ibm.com [9.57.199.108]) by b01cxnp22033.gho.pok.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id 26Q6gkRL54526428 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Tue, 26 Jul 2022 06:42:46 GMT Received: from b01ledav003.gho.pok.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 903ABB2065; Tue, 26 Jul 2022 06:42:46 +0000 (GMT) Received: from b01ledav003.gho.pok.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A782B2064; Tue, 26 Jul 2022 06:42:46 +0000 (GMT) Received: from pike (unknown [9.5.12.127]) by b01ledav003.gho.pok.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS; Tue, 26 Jul 2022 06:42:46 +0000 (GMT) From: Jiufu Guo To: "Kewen.Lin" Cc: segher@kernel.crashing.org, dje.gcc@gmail.com, linkw@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: [PATCH V1] HIGH part of symbol ref is invalid for constant pool References: <20220719143054.82832-1-guojiufu@linux.ibm.com> Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2022 14:42:41 +0800 In-Reply-To: (Kewen Lin's message of "Mon, 25 Jul 2022 18:12:27 +0800") Message-ID: <7ewnc0ml26.fsf@pike.rch.stglabs.ibm.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.2 (gnu/linux) Content-Type: text/plain X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 X-Proofpoint-ORIG-GUID: TlebLCfwmsavk41ma8Ml0NYYPrvgh2bC X-Proofpoint-GUID: mZagZRrwzqe5vXZBopAEEuKv_jzwSyPf X-Proofpoint-UnRewURL: 0 URL was un-rewritten MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=baseguard engine=ICAP:2.0.205,Aquarius:18.0.883,Hydra:6.0.517,FMLib:17.11.122.1 definitions=2022-07-26_02,2022-07-25_03,2022-06-22_01 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 mlxlogscore=999 mlxscore=0 lowpriorityscore=0 adultscore=0 bulkscore=0 phishscore=0 priorityscore=1501 impostorscore=0 clxscore=1011 spamscore=0 suspectscore=0 malwarescore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2206140000 definitions=main-2207260024 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-12.2 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 X-BeenThere: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Gcc-patches mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2022 06:42:52 -0000 "Kewen.Lin" writes: > Hi Jeff, > > on 2022/7/19 22:30, Jiufu Guo wrote: >> Hi, >> >> In patch https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2022-July/597712.html, >> test case was not added. After more check, a testcase is added for it. >> > > Good to see that you constructed one actual test case, nice! :) > >> The high part of the symbol address is invalid for the constant pool. >> In function rs6000_cannot_force_const_mem, we already return true for >> "HIGH with UNSPEC" rtx. Below are some examples also indicate the high >> part of a symbol_ref: >> (high:DI (const:DI (plus:DI (symbol_ref:DI ("xx") (const_int 12 [0xc]))))) >> (high:DI (symbol_ref:DI ("var_1")..))) >> >> This patch updates rs6000_cannot_force_const_mem to return true for >> rtx with HIGH code. >> >> Bootstrapped and regtested on ppc64le and ppc64. >> Is it ok for trunk? > > I think this patch is OK with some nits below tweaked. Thanks so much for your time to review and helpful comments! I will update accordingly before commit. BR, Jeff(Jiufu) > >> >> BR, >> Jeff(Jiufu) >> >> >> gcc/ChangeLog: >> >> * config/rs6000/rs6000.cc (rs6000_cannot_force_const_mem): >> Return true for HIGH code rtx. >> >> gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog: >> >> * gcc.target/powerpc/constpoolcheck.c: New test. >> >> --- >> gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.cc | 7 +++++-- >> gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/constpoolcheck.c | 11 +++++++++++ >> 2 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >> create mode 100644 gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/constpoolcheck.c >> >> diff --git a/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.cc b/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.cc >> index 0af2085adc0..d56832ebbfc 100644 >> --- a/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.cc >> +++ b/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.cc >> @@ -9704,8 +9704,11 @@ 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) >> + /* High part of a symbol ref/address can not be put into constant pool. e.g. > > Nit: two spaces after the period in "... pool.". Thanks! > >> + (high:DI (symbol_ref:DI ("var")..)) or > > Nit: You have one "or" at the end of the above line, I think it's better to > keep the below line consistent by either removing the above " or" or adding > one "or" at the end of the below line. Thanks! > >> + (high:DI (unspec:DI [(symbol_ref/u:DI ("*.LC0")..) > > >> + (high:DI (const:DI (plus:DI (symbol_ref:DI ("xx")) (const_int 12)))). */ >> + 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/constpoolcheck.c b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/constpoolcheck.c >> new file mode 100644 >> index 00000000000..ed7a994827b >> --- /dev/null >> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/constpoolcheck.c > > Maybe it's good to name it to "const-pool-check.c" or "not-force-const-mem.c". Great sugguestion! Thanks. > >> @@ -0,0 +1,11 @@ >> +/* { dg-do compile { target powerpc*-*-* } } */ > > Nit: this "dg-do" line isn't needed since all here are default. Thanks for your comments! > > BR, > Kewen > >> +/* { dg-options "-O1 -mdejagnu-cpu=power10" } */ >> +/* (high:DI (symbol_ref:DI ("var_48")..))) should not cause ICE. */ >> +extern short var_48; >> +void >> +foo (double *r) >> +{ >> + if (var_48) >> + *r = 1234.5678; >> +} >> +