From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-lf1-x129.google.com (mail-lf1-x129.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::129]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6F0C03959C42 for ; Wed, 16 Nov 2022 10:27:27 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org 6F0C03959C42 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=vrull.eu Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=vrull.eu Received: by mail-lf1-x129.google.com with SMTP id r12so28789126lfp.1 for ; Wed, 16 Nov 2022 02:27:27 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=vrull.eu; s=google; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=rKCABdpuGTsv9pMhNMK12F1wndg0m2kVsqe4DdFckkA=; b=l3j4pQXCL9Dhb2nLuOitROdxL/zepRcWAT/H8MEkOotHP2RLR0nKjkAyITmfIn5fSC FF9PBsZrV/WRXIQA8EtmchtJbuZA/5D6XuJnMsdd8ulYedhduaqWh7HIxysrIpQAem5E M67L6mqhju09UrfKrlIYvSgb8zOrHLm7dIBi5oSOEwIxhXGXV9GEjZS/EMmIqAUkuxDI KFe6DGLwcEDxL4x/yvwrlbLuq8Zhugh4Vq8k4dR+94YF81eQNW/PmB4vW1/PPFRxGkLM odvUOBO6pE89Vz7quOyeQxnTQK6k2qitKXKY4R4IgfGPDQcu1d+d8NB/7bmsYN5zvf0Y yOng== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=rKCABdpuGTsv9pMhNMK12F1wndg0m2kVsqe4DdFckkA=; b=fsrOKKi5V307gJIt651GdN5w3gfOdWPvP2XB1NyT+e2lOQhuhCe4VdCfnWeAa3AiJ+ gzMvl5uEQsAzn6m78wkvpv9HJPlvgfpWx0OI1AQfU8PxQ9jN1la0BHA7YC9aLMfKAmaj uHgwl2c3pGiBgRXbsmHEfnj676bQfyrAEyRc3R/nry5l4tIYF1mT4aPlgcqj51kE216f OH1DaEq1/hRv5sYXjW2lnAaGrnC3xD3a4+Df9aWoUvE2rYDke5mAmOGRHyun1+EAqh76 BSKEnQYs6q39p8ke9ccLc2D5MbbLMbocHdnJW5yR/dkNBHd9NV0eOTKJCN8fMfoc7DiP m0fg== X-Gm-Message-State: ANoB5plb9A/ItHJ2hQDfGFDlkrma0pUbMjBX4tk9NH3/W7DxuvEnFn6h 7wIEerWw1fCPLy9/sE67jqYsliOMIMI954Ow213N1w== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AA0mqf5MKvf/KBBgjqjXckajAMI1+j8YzlpvouAfU3EeNJuKV85r8v7IWaJQvtHseL2Im4g+gxUuDEoqbIYYt8rdi20= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6512:1042:b0:4a2:2aad:95c4 with SMTP id c2-20020a056512104200b004a22aad95c4mr8262862lfb.110.1668594445942; Wed, 16 Nov 2022 02:27:25 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <111429e6-460c-5d83-ace5-8948b0c75363@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <111429e6-460c-5d83-ace5-8948b0c75363@gmail.com> From: Manolis Tsamis Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2022 12:26:49 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH] Enable shrink wrapping for the RISC-V target. To: Jeff Law Cc: Palmer Dabbelt , jlaw@ventanamicro.com, gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, Vineet Gupta , Kito Cheng , philipp.tomsich@vrull.eu Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,JMQ_SPF_NEUTRAL,KAM_SHORT,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,TXREP autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on server2.sourceware.org List-Id: On Sun, Nov 13, 2022 at 3:33 AM Jeff Law via Gcc-patches 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 Manolis > > Jeff >