Re: porting GCC

["Krzysztof Matula" <K.Matula@adb.pl>]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard Earnshaw" <rearnsha@arm.com>
Sent: Friday, February 02, 2001 13:00


> > I am generating several insn-s inside define_expand. The meaning of the
code
> > is not exactly the same, as the rtl matched. The problem is that GCC
always
> > notes the last insn I generate with REG_EQUAL expression, corresponding
to
> > the ORIGINAL code... I don't know how to avoid this...
>
> Why is this a problem?  Gcc annotates the end of the sequence with a note
> of the equivalent it collapses to.  If you think of (symbol_ref
> ("__clz_tab")) as the final address that will be dereferenced then the
> expression
>
> (unspec [(symbol_ref ("__clz_tab"))] 3)
> should be thought of as being equivalent to
>
> (minus (symbol_ref ("__clz_tab")) (reg:SI base_reg))

I'm not sure if I understand this... Maybe there's something wrong that GCC
thinks of (symbol_ref ("__clz_tab")) as absolute address and the assembly
instructions not:

     (expr_list:REG_EQUAL (plus:SI (mem:SI (reg:SI 9))
             (symbol_ref/v:SI ("__clz_tab")))

(reg:SI 9) here represents the index to the __clz_tab, not the segment
base...
Referencing an element requires addition of segment base ((reg:SI 14) in the
example below), the index (reg:SI 9) and the relative starting offset of the
array: (symbol_ref/v:SI ("__clz_tab")). When I write the __clz_tab reference
into otput file I get the offset only...
The segment base is not a single register. It is always accessible as first
hidden argument to every function. It always needs to execute code to get it
into register... I don't think I can do this inside define_insn...

When I compile my example with -O2 GCC makes use of the REG_EQUAL and
produces rlt that doesn't match any insn (and in fact is incorrect):

(insn 10 8 11 (set (reg:SI 15)
        (plus:SI (reg/v:SI 13)
            (symbol_ref/v:SI ("__clz_tab")))) -1 (nil)
    (nil))

(reg/v:SI 13) stands here for the index to the array. No segment base
addition takes place.


> [we don't express it this way since then the compiler might try to
> simplify the expression in a way that would be incorrect, but
> mathematically when the base_reg value is added back on we end up with the
> address we really want.]

If only the value is added...

> >
> > (insn 9 8 11 (set (reg:SI 15)   ;;real array address
> >         (plus:SI (reg:SI 14)        ;;segment base
> >
pec:SI[ 
> >                     (symbol_ref/v:SI ("__clz_tab"))
> >                 ]  3))) -1 (nil)
> >     (nil))
> > 
> > (insn 11 9 12 (set (reg:SI 16)    ;;index to the array
> >         (mem:SI (reg:SI 9))) -1 (nil)
> >     (nil))
> > 
> > (insn 12 11 14 (set (reg:SI 13)
> >         (plus:SI (reg:SI 16)
> >             (reg:SI 15))) -1 (nil)
> >     (nil))
> > 
> > (insn 14 12 16 (set (reg:SI 13)
> >         (reg:SI 13)) -1 (nil)
> >     (expr_list:REG_EQUAL (plus:SI (mem:SI (reg:SI 9))
> >             (symbol_ref/v:SI ("__clz_tab")))
> >         (nil)))
> > 

KM