On Thu, Jun 25, 2020 at 1:10 AM Richard Biener wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 25, 2020 at 2:53 AM Sunil Pandey wrote: > > > > On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 12:30 AM Richard Biener > > wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 5:31 PM Sunil K Pandey via Gcc-patches > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > From: Sunil K Pandey > > > > > > > > Default for this hook is NOP. For x86, in 32 bit mode, this hook > > > > sets alignment of long long on stack to 32 bits if preferred stack > > > > boundary is 32 bits. > > > > > > > > - This patch fixes > > > > gcc.target/i386/pr69454-2.c > > > > gcc.target/i386/stackalign/longlong-1.c > > > > - Regression test on x86-64, no new fail introduced. > > > > > > I think the name is badly chosen, TARGET_LOWER_LOCAL_DECL_ALIGNMENT > > > > Yes, I can change the target hook name. > > > > > would be better suited (and then asks for LOCAL_DECL_ALIGNMENT to be > > > renamed to INCREASE_LOCAL_DECL_ALIGNMENT). > > > > It seems like LOCAL_DECL_ALIGNMENT macro documentation is incorrect. > > It increases as well as decreases alignment based on condition(-m32 > > -mpreferred-stack-boundary=2) > > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95885 > > > > > > > > You're calling it from do_type_align which IMHO is dangerous since that's > > > invoked from FIELD_DECL layout as well. Instead invoke it from > > > layout_decl itself where we do > > > > > > if (code != FIELD_DECL) > > > /* For non-fields, update the alignment from the type. */ > > > do_type_align (type, decl); > > > > > > and invoke the hook _after_ do_type_align. Also avoid > > > invoking the hook on globals or hard regs and only > > > invoke it on VAR_DECLs, thus only > > > > > > if (VAR_P (decl) && !is_global_var (decl) && !DECL_HARD_REGISTER (decl)) > > > > It seems like decl property is not fully populated at this point call > > to is_global_var (decl) on global variable return false. > > > > $ cat foo.c > > long long x; > > int main() > > { > > if (__alignof__(x) != 8) > > __builtin_abort(); > > return 0; > > } > > > > Breakpoint 1, layout_decl (decl=0x7ffff7ffbb40, known_align=0) > > at /local/skpandey/gccwork/gccwork/gcc/gcc/stor-layout.c:674 > > 674 do_type_align (type, decl); > > Missing separate debuginfos, use: dnf debuginfo-install > > gmp-6.1.2-10.fc31.x86_64 isl-0.16.1-9.fc31.x86_64 > > libmpc-1.1.0-4.fc31.x86_64 mpfr-3.1.6-5.fc31.x86_64 > > zlib-1.2.11-20.fc31.x86_64 > > (gdb) call debug_tree(decl) > > > type > size > > unit-size > > align:64 warn_if_not_align:0 symtab:0 alias-set -1 > > canonical-type 0x7fffea801888 precision:64 min > 0x7fffea7e8fd8 -9223372036854775808> max > 9223372036854775807> > > pointer_to_this > > > DI foo.c:1:11 size unit-size > > > > align:1 warn_if_not_align:0> > > > > (gdb) p is_global_var(decl) > > $1 = false > > (gdb) > > > > > > What about calling hook here > > > > 603 do_type_align (tree type, tree decl) > > 604 { > > 605 if (TYPE_ALIGN (type) > DECL_ALIGN (decl)) > > 606 { > > 607 SET_DECL_ALIGN (decl, TYPE_ALIGN (type)); > > 608 if (TREE_CODE (decl) == FIELD_DECL) > > 609 DECL_USER_ALIGN (decl) = TYPE_USER_ALIGN (type); > > 610 else > > 611 /* Lower local decl alignment */ > > 612 if (VAR_P (decl) > > 613 && !is_global_var (decl) > > 614 && !DECL_HARD_REGISTER (decl) > > 615 && cfun != NULL) > > 616 targetm.lower_local_decl_alignment (decl); > > 617 } > > But that doesn't change anything (obviously). layout_decl > is called quite early, too early it looks like. > > Now there doesn't seem to be any other good place where > we are sure to catch the decl before we evaluate things > like __alignof__ > > void __attribute__((noipa)) > foo (__SIZE_TYPE__ align, long long *p) > { > if ((__SIZE_TYPE__)p & (align-1)) > __builtin_abort (); > } > int main() > { > long long y; > foo (_Alignof y, &y); > return 0; > } > > Joseph/Jason - do you have a good recommendation > how to deal with targets where natural alignment > is supposed to be lowered for optimization purposes? > (this case is for i?86 to avoid dynamic stack re-alignment > to align long long to 8 bytes with -mpreferred-stack-boundary=2) > > I note that for -mincoming-stack-boundary=2 we do perform > dynamic stack re-alignment already. > > I can't find a suitable existing target macro/hook for this, > but my gut feeling is that the default alignment should > instead be the lower one and instead the alignment for > globals should be raised as optimization? > Here is the updated patch from Sunil. -- H.J.