From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-lf1-x12d.google.com (mail-lf1-x12d.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::12d]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D3FA7398241D for ; Thu, 17 Nov 2022 10:55:25 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org D3FA7398241D 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-x12d.google.com with SMTP id d6so2165830lfs.10 for ; Thu, 17 Nov 2022 02:55:25 -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=OSEk+3KigIuQw7lS7wAjwfhDjw02JzxneFEqL+ouSH4=; b=jcH+e1kFn78ALEpdHUImaTr8vdesRJ4/BqmwP8gd+7zJQjck81OacyKMpVr6zGpjVS CevZnsP86B3msUK2Q7KXLmmbCh2yEmithWXX+linAdylHbJA4xdfzVPyqWY8mgkwjaHv qThxw7jE3UF8UAxXEHHE1u63JJgNf+6QddmX1hMNZtPsqhaoHNhGey04ApV0b13+8mTS 5nbZNd2j6n7Ycjigu28w7Gzi754D+uwtp8FQE3gIadFMPDp5QUCDC/IF97yTp8wOO5Um s2X6g6DePAa3vqRVrjSr1Bkb/FyiLYtEBp5q8yV5ZOVG6Mv8S503HV8UZSP8ykOOCr7Q 3qLQ== 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=OSEk+3KigIuQw7lS7wAjwfhDjw02JzxneFEqL+ouSH4=; b=yMjyZUFJjcPRSeArBosYY23KGvbigZQCUVVDolwUKnWKUOr5yA78nBSiknDb6E1dmF Uu5bH5+BoOuLcubfVvaY4roe1idvpx9uSMVbSUu1O027cWDgfG1L/ZHk1qPucBLAMEn5 2Bxbg7mUkXfTtR36QAw9+AJe1usZx6I3U3vO56hezBABZLmYbCPiiHPV5HaF8iLqhw0t R9y8wBYN1EdR5kpY9ow7eyKwhQ/xn0sVtuJ/bGucdYBD6WnK0rM2GVnn72yOnTADNF+Z +Tmo2pmuT/vp8+D6O/AXOOaUc3K48iOtVC9p2INvv5d6DQheXzn7PDJUeiKcWH83PQfa ApMg== X-Gm-Message-State: ANoB5plzOgTQ6tDdT7/bEQmUQ0lqFa5zD1WtqZBq2g+doBZjG3EyFyxr SJtD1R9St1KZpEHWKd1AkcHDoSbC4F5lytXHI/yywQ== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AA0mqf6w/mvRFHwZMh1pz503yGworPQ1iiyIowogTFTyYMOCemn4ERkOozhNdHicsfv6SROrMkPIYFVEyAeZ/hVhG5w= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6512:32d0:b0:4b4:b5ed:c71f with SMTP id f16-20020a05651232d000b004b4b5edc71fmr667365lfg.227.1668682524506; Thu, 17 Nov 2022 02:55:24 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <111429e6-460c-5d83-ace5-8948b0c75363@gmail.com> <802c4244-a6a2-974b-558e-223dd2909791@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <802c4244-a6a2-974b-558e-223dd2909791@gmail.com> From: Manolis Tsamis Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2022 12:54:48 +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=-2.0 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 Thu, Nov 17, 2022 at 4:09 AM Jeff Law wrote: > > > On 11/16/22 03:26, Manolis Tsamis wrote: > > 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 > > 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 >