From: Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@dabbelt.com>
To: jlaw@ventanamicro.com
Cc: 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: Mon, 07 Nov 2022 14:07:58 -0800 (PST) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <mhng-4601ae99-88f8-45a2-8055-339b7feaba1a@palmer-ri-x1c9a> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <bf2f5779-15cc-a886-4553-af44108edf05@ventanamicro.com>
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.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-11-07 22:08 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 [this message]
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
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=mhng-4601ae99-88f8-45a2-8055-339b7feaba1a@palmer-ri-x1c9a \
--to=palmer@dabbelt.com \
--cc=gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=jlaw@ventanamicro.com \
--cc=kito.cheng@gmail.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).