From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-pj1-x1029.google.com (mail-pj1-x1029.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::1029]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 779883858412 for ; Thu, 3 Nov 2022 22:23:32 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org 779883858412 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=ventanamicro.com Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=ventanamicro.com Received: by mail-pj1-x1029.google.com with SMTP id m6-20020a17090a5a4600b00212f8dffec9so3137154pji.0 for ; Thu, 03 Nov 2022 15:23:32 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ventanamicro.com; s=google; h=content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:from:references:cc:to :content-language:subject:user-agent:mime-version:date:message-id :from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=D1VwnCkpQljEPB5am7aVc64kek1GXxO5jX27mWYjB4k=; b=D8nneqvllg1EDd0MDoJF84akEu1Zklssf38pXGgnsIsdgTei1EChBN5lzkMjO9VT25 tVZluW/j2uGMZmh3u2wMBXL0ntA+PdHoKYYaBJBuIK0yiARO5EIU2daHn1k0gmyYCD/j eCP4nEsxpaZb+37C/Fi3geqjG8cDU6R8ixC356M1jMLb4i4ZE+OhBvi8AomNJzGHWsHV tC7946gtlk5M7sK9BpAREjuiZX3V3dKmazaxBT8v1f/Dq7wH3wdKqpBixy/FsI5/6bkr JBo208piqSB/0fkcIzV9R+q/UTS4GSkumyIT7RiDvoZNODXKE1/imykpBCdjRYnE3eS3 i61A== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:from:references:cc:to :content-language:subject:user-agent:mime-version:date:message-id :x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=D1VwnCkpQljEPB5am7aVc64kek1GXxO5jX27mWYjB4k=; b=fIj+zD8mnJ0E0OdMDPdaNhAFdPsW4JL+dyPPy3JNJIBXDhtA5HHp0QwG7GXQuk+cJ2 z6lbt5YFdxQpuQJuHvZ7QiulygTu/MgmgT35Wa96inTuxclrLG51zkyt1ck9+bLVoB5H xLwiCkXsVpO6nziL2ZCm7bgXRJxeOXFJoJiGG1IyGouG8hakgfTp0JJZZAQ0J78mkB9i vHUnYRbddTNOqvr5xjB6z6CJPLoDHN1xieSPaLytOIeE/UVEVWXfLkcH1GiRFa+op/ig AOG4HycijdyiHYQahdMdCUdPOBQO2AdZYLH9LZY+ZI9buuO2oyaGjst23EFADcHkMkZv UyTQ== X-Gm-Message-State: ACrzQf1H+Tz5E+4mTy3BpRJL/btPbwGkimL7Vdvwhp3ODZSXCrZVVjuj Qxy0d1/YfYGQ6RsfJ45RXB/lYQ== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AMsMyM74LsUmVfEhHkKflTKLlHiay+XKiEDGhTUClkrmX+Z1jGotvY6FXjrGknl61Dx1g58iPE7ZVQ== X-Received: by 2002:a17:90a:ec04:b0:213:60bf:e6f7 with SMTP id l4-20020a17090aec0400b0021360bfe6f7mr48453419pjy.211.1667514210291; Thu, 03 Nov 2022 15:23:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?IPV6:2601:681:8600:13d0::f0a? ([2601:681:8600:13d0::f0a]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id g14-20020a63520e000000b0046f8e444edfsm1195366pgb.60.2022.11.03.15.23.29 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 03 Nov 2022 15:23:30 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Thu, 3 Nov 2022 16:23:28 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.3.1 Subject: Re: [PATCH] Enable shrink wrapping for the RISC-V target. Content-Language: en-US To: Palmer Dabbelt Cc: manolis.tsamis@vrull.eu, Vineet Gupta , gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, Kito Cheng , philipp.tomsich@vrull.eu References: From: Jeff Law In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.5 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,NICE_REPLY_A,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,TXREP autolearn=ham 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 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. jeff