From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-patches-return-398597-listarch-gcc-patches=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 119270 invoked by alias); 21 May 2015 19:43:01 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc-patches.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 119200 invoked by uid 89); 21 May 2015 19:43:00 -0000
Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none
X-Virus-Found: No
X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=no version=3.3.2
X-HELO: smtp.ispras.ru
Received: from smtp.ispras.ru (HELO smtp.ispras.ru) (83.149.199.79) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Thu, 21 May 2015 19:42:59 +0000
Received: from [10.10.3.121] (unknown [83.149.199.91])	by smtp.ispras.ru (Postfix) with ESMTP id A99D9214EA;	Thu, 21 May 2015 22:42:55 +0300 (MSK)
Date: Thu, 21 May 2015 20:32:00 -0000
From: Alexander Monakov <amonakov@ispras.ru>
To: "H.J. Lu" <hjl.tools@gmail.com>
cc: Richard Henderson <rth@redhat.com>, GCC Patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>,     Uros Bizjak <ubizjak@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] PR target/66232: -fPIC -fno-plt -mx32 fails to generate indirect branch via GOT
In-Reply-To: <CAMe9rOpsytbFciE4nGwA40i6dgjjKPOLRYSSQcbggqc6jjCb4g@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.LNX.2.11.1505212239550.22867@monopod.intra.ispras.ru>
References: <20150521125904.GA26391@gmail.com> <555E26F3.3020202@redhat.com> <CAMe9rOr+hE_3W2AfXbZH0DziC-z6LA5xtx5OGNy40V5Df-9gRg@mail.gmail.com> <555E2CB8.3040603@redhat.com> <CAMe9rOrD-VCAGSNs2D5h4+zn+LRmVO05cOjbj9By1-+Xy++BEQ@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.LNX.2.11.1505212231270.22867@monopod.intra.ispras.ru> <CAMe9rOpsytbFciE4nGwA40i6dgjjKPOLRYSSQcbggqc6jjCb4g@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.11 (LNX 23 2013-08-11)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
X-SW-Source: 2015-05/txt/msg02035.txt.bz2



On Thu, 21 May 2015, H.J. Lu wrote:

> On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 12:32 PM, Alexander Monakov <amonakov@ispras.ru> wrote:
> > On Thu, 21 May 2015, H.J. Lu wrote:
> >> On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 12:06 PM, Richard Henderson <rth@redhat.com> wrote:
> >> > On 05/21/2015 12:01 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> >> >> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr66232-1.c
> >> >> @@ -0,0 +1,13 @@
> >> >> +/* { dg-do compile { target *-*-linux* } } */
> >> >> +/* { dg-options "-O2 -fpic -fno-plt" } */
> >> >> +
> >> >> +extern void bar (void);
> >> >> +
> >> >> +void
> >> >> +foo (void)
> >> >> +{
> >> >> +  bar ();
> >> >> +}
> >> >> +
> >> >> +/* { dg-final { scan-assembler "jmp\[ \t\]*.bar@GOTPCREL" { target { ! ia32 } } } } */
> >> >> +/* { dg-final { scan-assembler "call\[ \t\]*.bar@GOT\\(" { target ia32 } } } */
> >> >
> >> > Do you really want to check for no tail call for ia32 here?
> >> > That's really just a missed optimization, surely.
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >> I'd like to keep it.  When it is fixed, we can update it.  I tried:
> >>
> >> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-05/msg00230.html
> >>
> >> and got
> >>
> >> call __x86.get_pc_thunk.ax
> >> addl $_GLOBAL_OFFSET_TABLE_, %eax
> >> subl $28, %esp
> >> .cfi_def_cfa_offset 32
> >> movl bar@GOT(%eax), %eax
> >> movl %eax, 12(%esp)
> >> addl $28, %esp
> >> .cfi_def_cfa_offset 4
> >> jmp *%eax
> >>
> >> This is very odd code, comparing against
> >
> > To avoid that, you need the CLOBBERED_REGS patch too:
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-05/msg00227.html
> >
> 
> Should both patches be needed for ia32 tail call?

I don't really understand the question.  The first patch (that you've linked)
is required to produce a tail call, the second patch (that I've linked) helps
to produce clean code.  To match the scan-assembler test as written in your
testcase, both patches are needed.

Alexander