public inbox for gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Manolis Tsamis <manolis.tsamis@vrull.eu>
To: Jeff Law <jeffreyalaw@gmail.com>
Cc: Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@dabbelt.com>,
	jlaw@ventanamicro.com, gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org,
	 Vineet Gupta <vineetg@rivosinc.com>,
	Kito Cheng <kito.cheng@gmail.com>,
	philipp.tomsich@vrull.eu
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Enable shrink wrapping for the RISC-V target.
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2022 12:54:48 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAM3yNXrngN3=yMnWYwv605bP9Qan=ssMcO02A+3RsUa7Yv+8Hw@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <802c4244-a6a2-974b-558e-223dd2909791@gmail.com>

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
>

  reply	other threads:[~2022-11-17 10:55 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2022-09-06 10:39 mtsamis
2022-10-02 20:32 ` Palmer Dabbelt
2022-10-18 15:18   ` Manolis Tsamis
2022-10-18 15:57     ` Jeff Law
2022-10-18 17:35       ` Palmer Dabbelt
2022-10-19 17:15         ` Jeff Law
2022-10-20  7:42           ` Manolis Tsamis
2022-11-02 14:12           ` Manolis Tsamis
2022-11-02 15:02             ` Jeff Law
2022-10-20  7:35         ` Manolis Tsamis
2022-11-02 13:54         ` Manolis Tsamis
2022-11-02 15:06           ` Jeff Law
2022-11-03  0:26             ` Palmer Dabbelt
2022-11-03 22:23               ` Jeff Law
2022-11-07 22:07                 ` Palmer Dabbelt
2022-11-13  1:32                   ` Jeff Law
2022-11-16 10:26                     ` Manolis Tsamis
2022-11-17  2:09                       ` Jeff Law
2022-11-17 10:54                         ` Manolis Tsamis [this message]
2022-11-17 11:59                           ` Philipp Tomsich

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='CAM3yNXrngN3=yMnWYwv605bP9Qan=ssMcO02A+3RsUa7Yv+8Hw@mail.gmail.com' \
    --to=manolis.tsamis@vrull.eu \
    --cc=gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org \
    --cc=jeffreyalaw@gmail.com \
    --cc=jlaw@ventanamicro.com \
    --cc=kito.cheng@gmail.com \
    --cc=palmer@dabbelt.com \
    --cc=philipp.tomsich@vrull.eu \
    --cc=vineetg@rivosinc.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).