Re: [PATCH] Enable shrink wrapping for the RISC-V target.

[Philipp Tomsich <philipp.tomsich@vrull.eu>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2373 bytes --]

v3 committed to master. Thanks!
Philipp.

On Thu, 17 Nov 2022 at 11:55, Manolis Tsamis <manolis.tsamis@vrull.eu>
wrote:

> On Thu, Nov 17, 2022 at 4:09 AM Jeff Law <jeffreyalaw@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 11/16/22 03:26, Manolis Tsamis wrote:
> > > On Sun, Nov 13, 2022 at 3:33 AM Jeff Law via Gcc-patches
> > > <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> On 11/7/22 15:07, Palmer Dabbelt wrote:
> > >>> On Thu, 03 Nov 2022 15:23:28 PDT (-0700), jlaw@ventanamicro.com
> wrote:
> > >>>> On 11/2/22 18:26, Palmer Dabbelt wrote:
> > >>>>>>> I also tried to remove that restriction but it looks like it
> can't
> > >>>>>>> work because we can't create
> > >>>>>>> pseudo-registers during shrink wrapping and shrink wrapping can't
> > >>>>>>> work either.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> I believe this means that shrink wrapping cannot interfere with a
> > >>>>>>> long
> > >>>>>>> stack frame
> > >>>>>>> so there is nothing to test against in this case?
> > >>>>>> It'd be marginally better to have such a test case to ensure we
> don't
> > >>>>>> shrink wrap it -- that would ensure that someone doesn't
> accidentally
> > >>>>>> introduce shrink wrapping with large offsets.   Just a bit of
> future
> > >>>>>> proofing.
> > >>>>> If there's passing test cases that fail with that check removed
> then
> > >>>>> it's probably good enough, though I think in this case just having
> a
> > >>>>> comment there saying why the short-stack check is necessary should
> be
> > >>>>> fine.
> > >>>> I can live with this.
> > >>> Which one (or either)?  I'm fine with either option, just trying to
> > >>> avoid another re-spin as this one is a bit vague.
> > >> Sorry I wasn't clear.  Either is fine with me.
> > >>
> > > Since all issues/concerns around this are resolved, is the v2 of this
> patch
> > > good for merging?
> > >
> > > Link for v2 patch is
> > > https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2022-October/603822.html
> >
> > You just need to add a comment to get_separate_components indicating
> > that the SMALL_OPERAND_P check is required as we do not support
> > shrink-wrapping with large stack frames.
> >
> >
> > OK with that comment.  Just post the final version and commit, no need
> > to wait for another review.
> >
> Final version (v3) for commiting is here
> https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2022-November/606523.html
>
> Thanks
> >
> > jeff
> >
>