public inbox for gcc@gcc.gnu.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Alexander Monakov <amonakov@ispras.ru>
To: Jozef Lawrynowicz <jozef.l@mittosystems.com>
Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] Disabling ICF for interrupt functions
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2019 13:32:00 -0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <alpine.LNX.2.20.13.1907191617110.29891@monopod.intra.ispras.ru> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190719134511.3d9101e5@jozef-kubuntu>

On Fri, 19 Jul 2019, Jozef Lawrynowicz wrote:

> For MSP430, the folding of identical functions marked with the "interrupt"
> attribute by -fipa-icf-functions results in wrong code being generated.
> Interrupts have different calling conventions than regular functions, so
> inserting a CALL from one identical interrupt to another is not correct and
> will result in stack corruption.

But ICF by creating an alias would be fine, correct?  As I understand, the
real issue here is that gcc does not know how to correctly emit a call to
"interrupt" functions (because they have unusual ABI and exist basically to
have their address stored somewhere).

So I think the solution shouldn't be in disabling ICF altogether, but rather
in adding a way to recognize that a function has quasi-unknown ABI and thus
not directly callable (so any other optimization can see that it may not emit
a call to this function), then teaching ICF to check that when deciding to
fold by creating a wrapper.

(would it be possible to tell ICF that addresses of interrupt functions are
not significant so it can fold them by creating aliases?)

Alexander

  reply	other threads:[~2019-07-19 13:32 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2019-07-19 12:45 Jozef Lawrynowicz
2019-07-19 13:32 ` Alexander Monakov [this message]
2019-07-22 17:01   ` Jozef Lawrynowicz
2019-07-22 18:50     ` Alexander Monakov
2019-07-26 17:39 ` Richard Sandiford
2019-07-30 13:41   ` Jozef Lawrynowicz
2019-07-31  9:50     ` Richard Biener
2019-07-31 12:22       ` Jozef Lawrynowicz

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=alpine.LNX.2.20.13.1907191617110.29891@monopod.intra.ispras.ru \
    --to=amonakov@ispras.ru \
    --cc=gcc@gcc.gnu.org \
    --cc=jozef.l@mittosystems.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).