From: Jeff Law <law@redhat.com>
To: Michael Matz <matz@suse.de>
Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: Do BLKmode bit-fields still exist?
Date: Thu, 05 Nov 2009 17:42:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4AF30E82.1000309@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0911051725440.15566@wotan.suse.de>
On 11/05/09 10:02, Michael Matz wrote:
> Hello,
>
> while working on factoring out very old code (expand_assignment,
> store_expr, store_field) I stumbled over the above question. There's code
> all over the compiler that tries to handle BLKmode bit-field FIELD_DECLs
> in a certain way, but I can't for the life of me construct anything that
> actually results in such fields and I meanwhile assume that over the years
> we simply can't generate them anymore.
>
> In the various bit-field accessors we sometimes use VOIDmode to mark an
> access to a real bit-field (otherwise we wouldn't be able to differ
> between an byte-aligned bit-field from a normal field, when looking at
> only bitpos + bitlength). I'm not talking about that. I'm specifically
> talking about bit-field FIELD_DECLs with DECL_MODE == BLKmode.
>
> From the code that tries to handle these it seems that this once meant an
> "unaligned bit-field", which doesn't really make sense (we can handle all
> situations and combinations of bitofs+bitlength in generic code). The
> handling in store_field is especially bogus, it tries to handle the case
> where the target (being a register) is aligned, the bit-field unaligned,
> and goes over memory for this. That's bollocks, we can do nice bit-magic
> for registers, however "aligned" the bit pattern is.
>
> Trying to trace where we could possibly construct such field decls we are
> often careful to not store BLKmode into DECL_MODE of field decls. The
> only place where we could get BLKmode is if the TYPE_MODE of the field
> decls type is BLKmode.
>
> Now, theoretically we can get TYPE_MODE == BLKmode very easily. But not
> for types from which bit-fields can be constructed. I'm pretty sure that
> we can construct bit field FIELD_DECLs only for integer types. All
> targets always have QImode through TImode available (in terms of
> machmode.def, some targets explicitely disallow using e.g. TImode). So
> all integer types that a user can write have a non-BLKmode. And that mode
> is used as the DECL_MODE for the bit field FIELD_DECL, no matter how
> large (depending on the language, excess size will give an error or round
> down to the max size of the underlying type).
>
> Sometimes we're also using mode_for_size to set DECL_MODEs of bit-fields
> (indirectly through types), but for bit field sizes that actually can be
> constructed we always have a mode available.
>
> Hence, I don't see how we ever can construct a BLKmode bit-field
> FIELD_DECL.
>
> In a desparate try to get some testcases which do have BLKmode bit-fields
> I bootstrapped and regtested the below patch (as part of a larger patch,
> though) on seven architectures with all languages (on two without Ada).
> To no avail.
>
> I tried to directly construct testcases which would possibly generate
> BLKmode at least for architectures which have very limited bitwidth (AVR),
> ala:
>
> typedef unsigned int TIint __attribute__((mode(DI)));
> struct Unaligned{
> int a:7;
> TIint b:63;
> int c:8;
> }__attribute__((packed));
>
> and reading/storing into the fields, varying the mode, the bitsizes and
> the like. To no avail again.
>
> Can somebody else come up with a testcase for his pet-target that triggers
> the gcc_unreachables() in the patch? Pretty please?
>
Perhaps the PA when returning small unaligned structures? Hmm,
probably not, I think we just needed to support copying BLKmode objects
to/from registers to make that work. Nevermind.
jeff
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-11-05 17:42 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-11-05 17:03 Michael Matz
2009-11-05 17:42 ` Jeff Law [this message]
2009-11-06 9:47 ` Eric Botcazou
2009-11-06 9:54 ` Richard Guenther
2009-11-06 11:29 ` Eric Botcazou
2009-11-06 16:24 ` Michael Matz
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=4AF30E82.1000309@redhat.com \
--to=law@redhat.com \
--cc=gcc@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=matz@suse.de \
/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).