From: Uros Bizjak <ubizjak@gmail.com>
To: Daniel Santos <daniel.santos@pobox.com>
Cc: gcc-patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>, Jan Hubicka <hubicka@ucw.cz>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 09/12] [i386] Add patterns and predicates foutline-msabi-xlouges
Date: Wed, 03 May 2017 06:17:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAFULd4Zv1LePG=ttRv-2bV3UdvfTGHvfTZFiRQGdkOWCr5FkOg@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <272376f2-178f-4d42-bc88-1555b54282f0@pobox.com>
On Wed, May 3, 2017 at 12:16 AM, Daniel Santos <daniel.santos@pobox.com> wrote:
>> I'd recommend that in the predicate, you check match_parallel from the
>> bottom up, since subexpressions on the top are already matched, and
>> you can have different number of subexpressions at the top.
>>
>> Uros.
>
>
> OK, this all makes sense then. I was using const_int tags to differentiate
> the insns, but omitting the insns for the leave (for example) are what
> ambiguates them in the first place.
>
> So one question I never had resolved is rather or not the order the insns in
> a parallel matters. From your suggestions, I'm guessing that it would be
> perfectly OK for the leave insns to follow use symbol and then have the
> register restores after that, even though that wouldn't make sense from an
> assembly level because we would be writing beyond the stack pointer. Am I
> reading this correctly? If so, then putting the register save/restore
> matching in the predicate (checking top down) and having all others in the
> pattern make great sense and should both simplify it and make it more clear.
The order of subexpressions of parallel in general does not matter.
> Also, I'm wondering if there's anything wrong with calling ix86_gen_leave ()
> and plucking the insns out of the generated parallel insn and moving that
> into my own parallel rather than generating them in my own function. I
> guess all the matters is what is cleanest.
Hm... I'd rather see subexpressions generated "by hand".
Uros.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-05-03 6:10 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 41+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-04-27 8:05 [PATCH v4 0/12] [i386] Improve 64-bit Microsoft to System V ABI pro/epilogues Daniel Santos
2017-04-27 8:05 ` [PATCH 02/12] [i386] Keep stack pointer valid after after re-alignment Daniel Santos
2017-04-27 8:05 ` [PATCH 03/12] [i386] Use re-aligned stack pointer for aligned SSE movs Daniel Santos
2017-04-27 8:05 ` [PATCH 05/12] [i386] Add option -mcall-ms2sysv-xlogues Daniel Santos
2017-04-28 6:00 ` Sandra Loosemore
2017-04-28 7:37 ` [PATCH 05/12 rev 1] " Daniel Santos
2017-04-27 8:05 ` [PATCH 09/12] [i386] Add patterns and predicates foutline-msabi-xlouges Daniel Santos
2017-05-01 11:18 ` Uros Bizjak
2017-05-02 22:19 ` Daniel Santos
2017-05-03 6:17 ` Uros Bizjak [this message]
2017-05-03 7:38 ` Daniel Santos
2017-05-03 8:38 ` Uros Bizjak
2017-05-04 21:35 ` [PATCH 09/12 rev1] [i386] Add patterns and predicates mcall-ms2sysv-xlogues Daniel Santos
2017-04-27 8:05 ` [PATCH 11/12] [i386] Add remainder of -mcall-ms2sysv-xlogues implementation Daniel Santos
2017-05-04 22:11 ` [PATCH 11/12 rev1] " Daniel Santos
2017-04-27 8:05 ` [PATCH 12/12] [i386,testsuite] Test program for ms to sysv abi function calls Daniel Santos
2017-05-17 9:52 ` Thomas Preudhomme
2017-04-27 8:05 ` [PATCH 01/12] [i386] Re-align stack frame prior to SSE saves Daniel Santos
2017-04-27 8:05 ` [PATCH 08/12] [i386] Modify ix86_compute_frame_layout for -mcall-ms2sysv-xlogues Daniel Santos
2017-04-27 8:05 ` [PATCH 10/12] [i386] Add ms2sysv pro/epilogue stubs to libgcc Daniel Santos
2017-04-27 8:23 ` [PATCH 04/12] [i386] Minor refactoring Daniel Santos
2017-04-27 8:44 ` [PATCH 07/12] [i386] Modify ix86_save_reg to optionally omit stub-managed registers Daniel Santos
2017-04-27 8:51 ` [PATCH 06/12] [i386] Add class xlogue_layout and new fields to struct machine_function Daniel Santos
2017-04-27 18:32 ` [PATCH v4 0/12 GCC8] [i386] Improve 64-bit Microsoft to System V ABI pro/epilogues Daniel Santos
2017-05-01 11:31 ` [PATCH v4 0/12] " Uros Bizjak
2017-05-02 10:25 ` JonY
2017-05-02 10:45 ` Kai Tietz
2017-05-03 6:01 ` Daniel Santos
2017-05-05 9:05 ` Daniel Santos
2017-05-06 20:41 ` Daniel Santos
2017-05-08 20:07 ` Daniel Santos
2017-05-03 4:32 ` Daniel Santos
2017-05-13 0:01 ` [PING] " Daniel Santos
2017-05-13 18:29 ` Uros Bizjak
2017-05-13 23:43 ` Daniel Santos
2017-05-14 10:25 ` Uros Bizjak
2017-07-26 19:03 ` H.J. Lu
2017-07-27 0:36 ` Daniel Santos
2017-07-28 13:51 ` Daniel Santos
2017-07-28 14:41 ` H.J. Lu
2017-07-31 10:25 ` Daniel Santos
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='CAFULd4Zv1LePG=ttRv-2bV3UdvfTGHvfTZFiRQGdkOWCr5FkOg@mail.gmail.com' \
--to=ubizjak@gmail.com \
--cc=daniel.santos@pobox.com \
--cc=gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=hubicka@ucw.cz \
/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).