This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

[RFC] PR/27390, latent complex-mode bug in regstack


This patch fixes two problems in regstack involving complex modes.

The problem is latent on 4.1 too, and manifests as a stack underflow in gcc.target/x86_64/abi/test_complex_returning.c at -O0. Unluckily, after the PR/19653 patch something convinces reload to produce slightly different RTL, and the stack underflow turns into a wrong-code generation.

The problematic RTL is a clobber in complex mode. When regstack encounters one, it calls move_nan_to_stack_reg twice on the same insn. However, the second call does *not* add a new insn, so we get only one stack load instead of two.

Then, however, when popping a complex floating-point value, the real part is popped first and the imaginary part is popped second. However, this seems to produce wrong code in this case. For this part, I would appreciate help because I am not sure whether what I should reorder these two, or rather I should invert the two pushes in subst_stack_regs_pat.

So, I propose two patches: the first one does not change the move_nan_to_stack_reg order, and only makes sure that both are emitted in the insn stream, and reorders the pops in emit_pop_insn. This patch was bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu and fixes the regression without introducing any new failure.

The second one changes the move_nan_to_stack_reg order, and of course makes sure that both are emitted in the insn stream. This seems to fix the regression too. It was not bootstrapped/regtested because I do not have access to the affected hardware; Richard Guenther has been very kind in testing the patches for this regression, but I'd rather have counsel from the reg-stack expert before asking him for a third bootstrap/regtest.

Does any of these sound ok, or is either approach completely wrong? (I am not asking explicitly for approval of either patch, but would not be unhappy with it).

Paolo


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]