From: Kito Cheng <kito.cheng@gmail.com>
To: Jeff Law <jeffreyalaw@gmail.com>
Cc: "Li, Pan2" <pan2.li@intel.com>,
"Stefan O'Rear" <sorear@fastmail.com>,
"Wang, Yanzhang" <yanzhang.wang@intel.com>,
"gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org" <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>,
"juzhe.zhong@rivai.ai" <juzhe.zhong@rivai.ai>,
"kito.cheng@sifive.com" <kito.cheng@sifive.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] RISCV: Add -m(no)-omit-leaf-frame-pointer support.
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2023 22:50:26 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CA+yXCZB+wQKwiFv9ki2q8LHjS5-zzkw=gEn0xJ7j0iHDqCCYXw@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <3d60b047-3061-701d-faea-0149c63cdeb1@gmail.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2552 bytes --]
LLVM will try to find scratch register even after RA to resolve the long
jump issue. so maybe we could consider similar approach? And I guess the
most complicate part would be the scratch register is not found, and
require spill/reload after RA.
Jeff Law via Gcc-patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>於 2023年6月26日 週一,22:31寫道:
>
>
> On 6/25/23 12:45, Stefan O'Rear wrote:
>
> >
> > To clarify: are you proposing to make ra (or t1 in the hypothetical) a
> fixed
> > register for all functions, or only those heuristically identified as
> potentially
> > larger than 1MiB? And would this extend to forcing the creation of
> stack frames
> > for all functions, including very small functions? I am concerned this
> would
> > result in a substantial performance regression.For the case Yanzhang is
> discussing (firmware and such), yes. And
> that's simply the cost they're going to have to pay for wanting
> consistent backtraces without utilizing dwarf unwind info, sframe or orc.
>
> Normal builds won't be using those options and thus won't suffer from
> those performance penalties.
>
> >
> > Without seeing the patch I can't know if I'm missing something obvious
> but I
> > would say t1 has three advantages:
> >
> > 1. Consistency with tail, possibly simpler implementation.
> And as I've already stated, this sequence is defined by the assembler.
> While I do want to revisit a compiler only solution, it's way down on my
> list of things to improve if I do a cost/benefit analysis. If someone
> wants to take a stab at it, I'm all for it. But it's not a simple
> problem due the phase ordering issues.
>
> >
> > 2. Very few functions use all seven t-registers. qemu linux-user in
> 2016 had an
> > off-by-one bug that corrupted t6 in sigreturn and it took months for
> anyone to
> > notice. By contrast, ra has live data in every non-_Noreturn function.
> That's a terrible way to evaluate the impact. The right way is to use
> real benchmarks. Not synthetic benchmarks. Not indirect observations
> that require triggering a bug in a sigreturn path. Build and run a real
> benchmark.
>
>
>
> >
> > 3. Any jalr instruction which has rs1=ra has a hint effect on the return
> address
> > stack (call, return, or coroutine swap); a jalr which is intended to be
> treated
> > as a plain jump must have rs1!=ra, rs1!=t0.
> I'm well aware of these concerns. We support disambiguating various
> jump forms to facilitate different branch predictors.
>
> jeff
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-06-26 14:50 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-06-02 7:07 yanzhang.wang
2023-06-03 2:43 ` Jeff Law
2023-06-05 2:49 ` Wang, Yanzhang
2023-06-07 2:13 ` Jeff Law
2023-06-07 3:50 ` Wang, Yanzhang
2023-06-08 15:05 ` Jeff Law
2023-06-21 8:14 ` Wang, Yanzhang
2023-06-24 15:01 ` Jeff Law
2023-06-25 1:40 ` Stefan O'Rear
2023-06-25 12:49 ` Jeff Law
2023-06-25 18:45 ` Stefan O'Rear
2023-06-26 14:30 ` Jeff Law
2023-06-26 14:50 ` Kito Cheng [this message]
2023-06-26 16:51 ` Jeff Law
2023-06-05 1:04 ` Li, Pan2
2023-06-05 3:36 ` Wang, Yanzhang
2023-07-13 6:12 ` yanzhang.wang
2023-07-18 7:49 ` [PATCH v3] " yanzhang.wang
2023-07-21 3:49 ` Kito Cheng
2023-07-21 4:11 ` Jeff Law
2023-08-02 1:51 ` Wang, Yanzhang
2023-08-03 6:12 ` Jeff Law
2023-08-03 6:16 ` Li, Pan2
2023-08-03 6:22 ` Li, Pan2
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='CA+yXCZB+wQKwiFv9ki2q8LHjS5-zzkw=gEn0xJ7j0iHDqCCYXw@mail.gmail.com' \
--to=kito.cheng@gmail.com \
--cc=gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=jeffreyalaw@gmail.com \
--cc=juzhe.zhong@rivai.ai \
--cc=kito.cheng@sifive.com \
--cc=pan2.li@intel.com \
--cc=sorear@fastmail.com \
--cc=yanzhang.wang@intel.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).