From: Jeff Law <law@redhat.com>
To: John Darrington <john@darrington.wattle.id.au>
Cc: Segher Boessenkool <segher@kernel.crashing.org>,
Paul Koning <paulkoning@comcast.net>,
Vladimir Makarov <vmakarov@redhat.com>,
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: Indirect memory addresses vs. lra
Date: Fri, 09 Aug 2019 16:07:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <197ca5dd-b137-b922-0a28-b31fdd501315@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190809081439.baoyu3ii5i2qfbzt@jocasta.intra>
On 8/9/19 2:14 AM, John Darrington wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 08, 2019 at 01:57:41PM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
>
> Yea, it's certainly designed with the more mainstream architectures in
> mind. THe double-indirect case that's being talked about here is well
> out of the mainstream and not a feature of anything LRA has targetted to
> date. So I'm not surprised it's not working.
>
> My suggestion would be to ignore the double-indirect aspect of the
> architecture right now, get the port working, then come back and try to
> make double-indirect addressing modes work.
>
> This sounds like sensible advice. However I wonder if this issue is
> related to the other major outstanding problem I have, viz: the large
> number of test failures which report "Unable to find a register to
> spill" - So far, nobody has been able to explain how to solve that
> issue and even the people who appear to be more knowlegeable have
> expressed suprise that it is even happening at all.
You're going to have to debug what LRA is doing and why. There's really
no short-cuts here. We can't really do it for you. Even if you weren't
using LRA you'd be doing the same process, just on even more difficult
to understand codebase.
>
> Even if it should turn out not to be related, the message I've been
> receiving in this thread is lra should not be expected to work for
> non "mainstream" backends. So perhaps there is another, yet to be
> discovered, restriction which prevents my backend from ever working?
It's possible. But that's not really any different than reload.
There's certainly various aspects of architectures that reload can't
handle as well -- even on architectures that were mainstream processors
when reload was under active development and maintenance. THere's even
a good chance reload won't handle double-indirect addressing modes well
-- they were far from mainstream and as a result the code which does
purport to handle double-indirect addressing modes hasn't been
used/tested all that much over the last 25+ years.
>
> On the other hand, given my lack of experience with gcc, it could be
> that lra is working perfectly, and I have simply done something
> incorrectly. But the uncertainty voiced in this thread means that it
> is hard to be sure that I'm not trying to do something which is
> currently unsupported.
My recommendation is to continue with the LRA path.
jeff
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-08-09 16:07 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 38+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-08-04 19:18 John Darrington
2019-08-08 16:25 ` Vladimir Makarov
2019-08-08 16:44 ` Paul Koning
2019-08-08 17:21 ` Segher Boessenkool
2019-08-08 17:25 ` Paul Koning
2019-08-08 19:09 ` Segher Boessenkool
2019-08-08 17:30 ` Paul Koning
2019-08-08 19:19 ` Segher Boessenkool
2019-08-08 19:57 ` Jeff Law
2019-08-09 8:14 ` John Darrington
2019-08-09 14:17 ` Segher Boessenkool
2019-08-09 14:23 ` Paul Koning
2019-08-10 6:10 ` John Darrington
2019-08-10 16:15 ` Segher Boessenkool
2019-08-09 16:07 ` Jeff Law [this message]
2019-08-09 17:34 ` Vladimir Makarov
2019-08-10 6:06 ` John Darrington
2019-08-10 16:12 ` Segher Boessenkool
2019-08-12 6:47 ` John Darrington
2019-08-12 8:40 ` Segher Boessenkool
2019-08-12 13:35 ` Vladimir Makarov
2019-08-15 16:29 ` Vladimir Makarov
2019-08-15 16:38 ` Richard Biener
2019-08-15 17:41 ` John Darrington
2019-08-15 18:30 ` Vladimir Makarov
2019-08-15 21:22 ` Segher Boessenkool
2019-08-15 17:36 ` John Darrington
2019-08-15 18:23 ` Vladimir Makarov
2019-08-16 11:24 ` Special Memory Constraint [was Re: Indirect memory addresses vs. lra] John Darrington
2019-08-16 14:50 ` Vladimir Makarov
2019-08-19 7:36 ` John Darrington
2019-08-19 13:14 ` Vladimir Makarov
2019-08-19 15:07 ` Segher Boessenkool
2019-08-19 18:06 ` John Darrington
2019-08-20 6:56 ` Richard Biener
2019-08-20 7:07 ` John Darrington
2019-08-20 7:30 ` Richard Biener
2019-08-08 18:46 ` Indirect memory addresses vs. lra Vladimir Makarov
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=197ca5dd-b137-b922-0a28-b31fdd501315@redhat.com \
--to=law@redhat.com \
--cc=gcc@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=john@darrington.wattle.id.au \
--cc=paulkoning@comcast.net \
--cc=segher@kernel.crashing.org \
--cc=vmakarov@redhat.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).