From: Uros Bizjak <ubizjak@gmail.com>
To: Segher Boessenkool <segher@kernel.crashing.org>
Cc: "gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org" <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>,
Jeff Law <jeffreyalaw@gmail.com>,
Richard Biener <rguenther@suse.de>
Subject: Re: Combine patch ping
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2024 22:37:36 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAFULd4YPOZTghJX1TRiULP8VKZTCiR-mis-PAs3DdgfF69D0rQ@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20240411140002.GO19790@gate.crashing.org>
On Thu, Apr 11, 2024 at 4:02 PM Segher Boessenkool
<segher@kernel.crashing.org> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Apr 10, 2024 at 08:32:39PM +0200, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 10, 2024 at 7:56 PM Segher Boessenkool
> > <segher@kernel.crashing.org> wrote:
> > > This is never okay. You cannot commit a patch without approval, *ever*.
>
> This is the biggest issue, to start with. It is fundamental.
>
> > > That patch is also obvious -- obviously *wrong*, that is. There are
> > > big assumptions everywhere in the compiler how a CC reg can be used.
> > > This violates that, as explained elsewhere.
> >
> > Can you please elaborate what is wrong with this concrete patch.
>
> The explanation of the patch is contradictory to how RTL works at all,
> so it is just wrong. It might even do something sane, but I didn't get
> that far at all!
The commit message explains the problem, the solution is explained in
the last couple of lines. Please see [1] for a more thorough
explanation of the problem.
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112560#c13
> Write good email explanations, and a good proposed commit message.
> Please. It is the only one people can judge a patch. Well, apart
> from doing everything myself from first principles, ignoring everything
> you said, just looking at the patch itself, but that is a hundred times
> more work. I don't do that.
>
> > The
> > part that the patch touches has several wrong assumptions, and the
> > fixed "???" comment just emphasizes that. I don't see what is wrong
> > with:
> >
> > (define_insn "@pushfl<mode>2"
> > [(set (match_operand:W 0 "push_operand" "=<")
> > (unspec:W [(match_operand 1 "flags_reg_operand")]
> > UNSPEC_PUSHFL))]
> > "GET_MODE_CLASS (GET_MODE (operands[1])) == MODE_CC"
> > "pushf{<imodesuffix>}"
> > [(set_attr "type" "push")
> > (set_attr "mode" "<MODE>")])
>
> What does it even mean? What is a flags:CC? You always always always
> need to say what is *in* the flags, if you want to use it as input
> (which is what unspec does). CC is weird like this. Most targets do
> not have distinct physical flags for every condition, only a few
> conditions are "alive" at any point in the program!
From our previous discussion, we concluded that "use" means
cc-compared-to-0, but we also need a "copy" operation, to be able to
move CC reg around as a physical register (e.g. sahf, lahf, pushfl,
popfl instructions). This is a register that contains the state of the
CPU, described in [1] , not some RTL concept. The register is even
listed in i386.md:
(FLAGS_REG 17)
with the "mode" that defines the value in the register more precisely.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FLAGS_register
>
> > it is just a push of the flags reg to the stack. If the push can't be
> > described in this way, then it is the middle end at fault, we can't
> > just change modes at will.
>
> But that is not what this describes: it operates on the flags register
> in some unspecified way, and pushes the result of *that* to the stack.
No, the "use" is defined as cc-compared-to-0. The above is a "copy"
operation, the register that holds the state of the CPU is pushed on
the stack (and can be later popped from the stack to reload the saved
state). The pushfl instruction does not use the register in the sense
that it examines its contents.
> (Stack pointer modification is not described here btw, should it be? Is
> that magically implemented by the backend some way, via type=push
> perhaps?)
Please see gen_pushfl() in i386.cc that emits the pattern:
#(insn:TI 5 2 6 2 (set (mem:DI (pre_dec:DI (reg/f:DI 7 sp)) [0 S8 A8])
# (unspec:DI [
# (reg:CC 17 flags)
# ] UNSPEC_PUSHFL)) "flags.c":3:10 70 {pushfldi2}
# (expr_list:REG_DEAD (reg:CC 17 flags)
# (nil)))
pushfq # 5 [c=4 l=1] pushfldi2
Uros.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-04-11 20:37 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-04-01 19:28 Uros Bizjak
2024-04-07 6:31 ` Uros Bizjak
2024-04-10 17:52 ` Segher Boessenkool
2024-04-10 18:32 ` Uros Bizjak
2024-04-11 6:15 ` Richard Biener
2024-04-11 14:00 ` Segher Boessenkool
2024-04-11 14:53 ` Richard Biener
2024-04-11 20:37 ` Uros Bizjak [this message]
2024-04-07 8:00 ` Richard Biener
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=CAFULd4YPOZTghJX1TRiULP8VKZTCiR-mis-PAs3DdgfF69D0rQ@mail.gmail.com \
--to=ubizjak@gmail.com \
--cc=gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=jeffreyalaw@gmail.com \
--cc=rguenther@suse.de \
--cc=segher@kernel.crashing.org \
/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).