From: Uros Bizjak <ubizjak@gmail.com>
To: Jeff Law <law@redhat.com>
Cc: "gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org" <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>
Subject: Re: [RFA][PATCH][PR target/82788] Remove uses of PROBE_INTERVAL in x86 target files
Date: Mon, 06 Nov 2017 07:08:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAFULd4ZD1zP25z4HsMBSCZtxCcnnw+9ghi38j3OT2D8zy-cyvw@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <2229cabd-3bc3-c654-1eca-41d7d7d36aba@redhat.com>
On Mon, Nov 6, 2017 at 5:47 AM, Jeff Law <law@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 11/03/2017 02:44 AM, Uros Bizjak wrote:
>> Hello!
>>
>> -ENOCHANGELOG
> Arggh. Downside of doing all the work on one machine, but mail
> elsewhere. Attached with ChangeLog this time :-)
>
>>
>> diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/execute/pr82788.c
>> b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/execute/pr82788.c
>> new file mode 100644
>> index 0000000..ceaa25f
>> --- /dev/null
>> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/execute/pr82788.c
>> @@ -0,0 +1,2 @@
>> +
>> +int main() { int a[1442]; return 0;}
>>
>> You probably need to add some dg-options to the testcase.
> Yea. Must have had a severe brain cramp there. Moved into gcc.dg and
> appropriate options added. That and one whitespace nit were the only
> changes since the original submission.
>
>
> OK now?
>
> jeff
>
> * config/i386/i386.c (PROBE_INTERVAL): Remove.
> (get_probe_interval): New function.
> (ix86_adjust_stack_and_probe_stack_clash): Use get_probe_interval.
> (ix86_adjust_stack_and_probe): Likewise.
> (output_adjust_stack_and_probe): Likewise.
> (ix86_emit_probe_stack_range): Likewise.
> (ix86_expand_prologue): Likewise.
>
> * gcc.dg/pr82788.c: New test.
OK.
Thanks,
Uros.
> diff --git a/gcc/config/i386/i386.c b/gcc/config/i386/i386.c
> index fc43962..672a085 100644
> --- a/gcc/config/i386/i386.c
> +++ b/gcc/config/i386/i386.c
> @@ -12083,7 +12083,17 @@ release_scratch_register_on_entry (struct scratch_reg *sr)
> }
> }
>
> -#define PROBE_INTERVAL (1 << STACK_CHECK_PROBE_INTERVAL_EXP)
> +/* Return the probing interval for -fstack-clash-protection. */
> +
> +static HOST_WIDE_INT
> +get_probe_interval (void)
> +{
> + if (flag_stack_clash_protection)
> + return (HOST_WIDE_INT_1U
> + << PARAM_VALUE (PARAM_STACK_CLASH_PROTECTION_PROBE_INTERVAL));
> + else
> + return (HOST_WIDE_INT_1U << STACK_CHECK_PROBE_INTERVAL_EXP);
> +}
>
> /* Emit code to adjust the stack pointer by SIZE bytes while probing it.
>
> @@ -12147,8 +12157,7 @@ ix86_adjust_stack_and_probe_stack_clash (const HOST_WIDE_INT size)
> /* We're allocating a large enough stack frame that we need to
> emit probes. Either emit them inline or in a loop depending
> on the size. */
> - HOST_WIDE_INT probe_interval
> - = 1 << PARAM_VALUE (PARAM_STACK_CLASH_PROTECTION_PROBE_INTERVAL);
> + HOST_WIDE_INT probe_interval = get_probe_interval ();
> if (size <= 4 * probe_interval)
> {
> HOST_WIDE_INT i;
> @@ -12157,7 +12166,7 @@ ix86_adjust_stack_and_probe_stack_clash (const HOST_WIDE_INT size)
> /* Allocate PROBE_INTERVAL bytes. */
> rtx insn
> = pro_epilogue_adjust_stack (stack_pointer_rtx, stack_pointer_rtx,
> - GEN_INT (-PROBE_INTERVAL), -1,
> + GEN_INT (-probe_interval), -1,
> m->fs.cfa_reg == stack_pointer_rtx);
> add_reg_note (insn, REG_STACK_CHECK, const0_rtx);
>
> @@ -12250,7 +12259,7 @@ ix86_adjust_stack_and_probe (const HOST_WIDE_INT size)
> that's the easy case. The run-time loop is made up of 9 insns in the
> generic case while the compile-time loop is made up of 3+2*(n-1) insns
> for n # of intervals. */
> - if (size <= 4 * PROBE_INTERVAL)
> + if (size <= 4 * get_probe_interval ())
> {
> HOST_WIDE_INT i, adjust;
> bool first_probe = true;
> @@ -12259,15 +12268,15 @@ ix86_adjust_stack_and_probe (const HOST_WIDE_INT size)
> values of N from 1 until it exceeds SIZE. If only one probe is
> needed, this will not generate any code. Then adjust and probe
> to PROBE_INTERVAL + SIZE. */
> - for (i = PROBE_INTERVAL; i < size; i += PROBE_INTERVAL)
> + for (i = get_probe_interval (); i < size; i += get_probe_interval ())
> {
> if (first_probe)
> {
> - adjust = 2 * PROBE_INTERVAL + dope;
> + adjust = 2 * get_probe_interval () + dope;
> first_probe = false;
> }
> else
> - adjust = PROBE_INTERVAL;
> + adjust = get_probe_interval ();
>
> emit_insn (gen_rtx_SET (stack_pointer_rtx,
> plus_constant (Pmode, stack_pointer_rtx,
> @@ -12276,9 +12285,9 @@ ix86_adjust_stack_and_probe (const HOST_WIDE_INT size)
> }
>
> if (first_probe)
> - adjust = size + PROBE_INTERVAL + dope;
> + adjust = size + get_probe_interval () + dope;
> else
> - adjust = size + PROBE_INTERVAL - i;
> + adjust = size + get_probe_interval () - i;
>
> emit_insn (gen_rtx_SET (stack_pointer_rtx,
> plus_constant (Pmode, stack_pointer_rtx,
> @@ -12288,7 +12297,8 @@ ix86_adjust_stack_and_probe (const HOST_WIDE_INT size)
> /* Adjust back to account for the additional first interval. */
> last = emit_insn (gen_rtx_SET (stack_pointer_rtx,
> plus_constant (Pmode, stack_pointer_rtx,
> - PROBE_INTERVAL + dope)));
> + (get_probe_interval ()
> + + dope))));
> }
>
> /* Otherwise, do the same as above, but in a loop. Note that we must be
> @@ -12306,7 +12316,7 @@ ix86_adjust_stack_and_probe (const HOST_WIDE_INT size)
>
> /* Step 1: round SIZE to the previous multiple of the interval. */
>
> - rounded_size = ROUND_DOWN (size, PROBE_INTERVAL);
> + rounded_size = ROUND_DOWN (size, get_probe_interval ());
>
>
> /* Step 2: compute initial and final value of the loop counter. */
> @@ -12314,7 +12324,7 @@ ix86_adjust_stack_and_probe (const HOST_WIDE_INT size)
> /* SP = SP_0 + PROBE_INTERVAL. */
> emit_insn (gen_rtx_SET (stack_pointer_rtx,
> plus_constant (Pmode, stack_pointer_rtx,
> - - (PROBE_INTERVAL + dope))));
> + - (get_probe_interval () + dope))));
>
> /* LAST_ADDR = SP_0 + PROBE_INTERVAL + ROUNDED_SIZE. */
> if (rounded_size <= (HOST_WIDE_INT_1 << 31))
> @@ -12359,7 +12369,8 @@ ix86_adjust_stack_and_probe (const HOST_WIDE_INT size)
> /* Adjust back to account for the additional first interval. */
> last = emit_insn (gen_rtx_SET (stack_pointer_rtx,
> plus_constant (Pmode, stack_pointer_rtx,
> - PROBE_INTERVAL + dope)));
> + (get_probe_interval ()
> + + dope))));
>
> release_scratch_register_on_entry (&sr);
> }
> @@ -12376,7 +12387,7 @@ ix86_adjust_stack_and_probe (const HOST_WIDE_INT size)
> XVECEXP (expr, 0, 1)
> = gen_rtx_SET (stack_pointer_rtx,
> plus_constant (Pmode, stack_pointer_rtx,
> - PROBE_INTERVAL + dope + size));
> + get_probe_interval () + dope + size));
> add_reg_note (last, REG_FRAME_RELATED_EXPR, expr);
> RTX_FRAME_RELATED_P (last) = 1;
>
> @@ -12403,7 +12414,7 @@ output_adjust_stack_and_probe (rtx reg)
>
> /* SP = SP + PROBE_INTERVAL. */
> xops[0] = stack_pointer_rtx;
> - xops[1] = GEN_INT (PROBE_INTERVAL);
> + xops[1] = GEN_INT (get_probe_interval ());
> output_asm_insn ("sub%z0\t{%1, %0|%0, %1}", xops);
>
> /* Probe at SP. */
> @@ -12433,14 +12444,14 @@ ix86_emit_probe_stack_range (HOST_WIDE_INT first, HOST_WIDE_INT size)
> that's the easy case. The run-time loop is made up of 6 insns in the
> generic case while the compile-time loop is made up of n insns for n #
> of intervals. */
> - if (size <= 6 * PROBE_INTERVAL)
> + if (size <= 6 * get_probe_interval ())
> {
> HOST_WIDE_INT i;
>
> /* Probe at FIRST + N * PROBE_INTERVAL for values of N from 1 until
> it exceeds SIZE. If only one probe is needed, this will not
> generate any code. Then probe at FIRST + SIZE. */
> - for (i = PROBE_INTERVAL; i < size; i += PROBE_INTERVAL)
> + for (i = get_probe_interval (); i < size; i += get_probe_interval ())
> emit_stack_probe (plus_constant (Pmode, stack_pointer_rtx,
> -(first + i)));
>
> @@ -12463,7 +12474,7 @@ ix86_emit_probe_stack_range (HOST_WIDE_INT first, HOST_WIDE_INT size)
>
> /* Step 1: round SIZE to the previous multiple of the interval. */
>
> - rounded_size = ROUND_DOWN (size, PROBE_INTERVAL);
> + rounded_size = ROUND_DOWN (size, get_probe_interval ());
>
>
> /* Step 2: compute initial and final value of the loop counter. */
> @@ -12524,7 +12535,7 @@ output_probe_stack_range (rtx reg, rtx end)
>
> /* TEST_ADDR = TEST_ADDR + PROBE_INTERVAL. */
> xops[0] = reg;
> - xops[1] = GEN_INT (PROBE_INTERVAL);
> + xops[1] = GEN_INT (get_probe_interval ());
> output_asm_insn ("sub%z0\t{%1, %0|%0, %1}", xops);
>
> /* Probe at TEST_ADDR. */
> @@ -13182,7 +13193,7 @@ ix86_expand_prologue (void)
> else if (STACK_CHECK_MOVING_SP)
> {
> if (!(crtl->is_leaf && !cfun->calls_alloca
> - && allocate <= PROBE_INTERVAL))
> + && allocate <= get_probe_interval ()))
> {
> ix86_adjust_stack_and_probe (allocate);
> allocate = 0;
> @@ -13199,7 +13210,7 @@ ix86_expand_prologue (void)
> {
> if (crtl->is_leaf && !cfun->calls_alloca)
> {
> - if (size > PROBE_INTERVAL)
> + if (size > get_probe_interval ())
> ix86_emit_probe_stack_range (0, size);
> }
> else
> @@ -13210,7 +13221,7 @@ ix86_expand_prologue (void)
> {
> if (crtl->is_leaf && !cfun->calls_alloca)
> {
> - if (size > PROBE_INTERVAL
> + if (size > get_probe_interval ()
> && size > get_stack_check_protect ())
> ix86_emit_probe_stack_range (get_stack_check_protect (),
> size - get_stack_check_protect ());
>
> diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr82788.c b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr82788.c
> new file mode 100644
> index 0000000..a8f628f
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr82788.c
> @@ -0,0 +1,4 @@
> +/* { dg-do run } */
> +/* { dg-options "-O2 -fstack-clash-protection --param stack-clash-protection-probe-interval=10 --param stack-clash-protection-guard-size=12" } */
> +/* { dg-require-effective-target supports_stack_clash_protection } */
> +int main() { int a[1442]; return 0;}
>
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-11-06 7:08 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-11-03 8:44 Uros Bizjak
2017-11-06 4:47 ` Jeff Law
2017-11-06 7:08 ` Uros Bizjak [this message]
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2017-11-03 3:44 Jeff Law
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=CAFULd4ZD1zP25z4HsMBSCZtxCcnnw+9ghi38j3OT2D8zy-cyvw@mail.gmail.com \
--to=ubizjak@gmail.com \
--cc=gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=law@redhat.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).