This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [trunk] Addition to subreg section of rtl.text.
- From: Richard Sandiford <rsandifo at nildram dot co dot uk>
- To: Ian Lance Taylor <iant at google dot com>
- Cc: Kenneth Zadeck <zadeck at naturalbridge dot com>, gcc-patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, "Bonzini\, Paolo" <bonzini at gnu dot org>
- Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2008 15:01:59 +0000
- Subject: Re: [trunk] Addition to subreg section of rtl.text.
- References: <47DA8A3E.7060002@naturalbridge.com> <87iqzpz7vj.fsf@firetop.home> <m3od9hqs00.fsf@google.com>
Kenneth Zadeck <zadeck@naturalbridge.com> writes:
> Richard Sandiford wrote:
>> Kenneth Zadeck <zadeck@naturalbridge.com> writes:
>>> Does every one agree that what i am adding is correct?
>>>
>>> kenny
>>> Index: rtl.texi
>>> ===================================================================
>>> --- rtl.texi (revision 133159)
>>> +++ rtl.texi (working copy)
>>> @@ -1730,15 +1730,21 @@ are in @var{m}.
>>> Sometimes @var{m} is wider than the mode of @var{reg}. These
>>> @code{subreg} expressions are often called @dfn{paradoxical}. They are
>>> used in cases where we want to refer to an object in a wider mode but do
>>> -not care what value the additional bits have. The reload pass ensures
>>> -that paradoxical references are only made to hard registers.
>>> -
>>> +not care what value the additional bits have. The smaller register
>>> +always overlaps the least significant bits of the larger register and
>>> +the @var{bytenum} is always zero for paradoxical registers (even on big
>>> +endian machines). The reload pass ensures that paradoxical references
>>> +are only made to hard registers.
>>>
>>
>> FWIW, I agree with the first sentence. I'm not quite sure what you mean
>> by the second though. My understanding is that reload should never
>> replace an operand with a subreg of a hard register; it should always
>> reduce it to a "reg" rtx. I think subregs should only appear after
>> reload if they are part of an .md pattern (as in spe.md, for example).
>>
>>
> Note that that sentence was already there. i added the single sentence
> in the middle.
Sorry!
Ian Lance Taylor <iant@google.com> writes:
> Richard Sandiford <rsandifo@nildram.co.uk> writes:
>>> The other use of @code{subreg} is to extract the individual registers of
>>> a multi-register value. Machine modes such as @code{DImode} and
>>> @code{TImode} can indicate values longer than a word, values which
>>> usually require two or more consecutive registers. To access one of the
>>> registers, use a @code{subreg} with mode @code{SImode} and a
>>> -@var{bytenum} offset that says which register.
>>> +@var{bytenum} offset that says which register. In this case, the
>>> +@var(bytenum) must align the outer value to a word boundary if the inner
>> ^^^^^^^^^
>> Nit: {bytenum}
>>
>>> +register is a psuedo or to a register boundary if the inner register is
>>> +a hard register.
>>
>> As I understand it, this is only true if the _outer_ register is
>> word-sized or bigger. You can have (subreg:QI (reg:DI ...) 3) on
>> a 32-bit big-endian target, for example.
>
> True in general, but that is not the specific case addressed in this
> paragraph, that of extracting the individual registers of a
> multi-register value. But perhaps this could be made more clear.
Well, it is accessing an individual register of a multi-register value.
It just isn't accessing the individual register in its full width.
The example is already talking about accessing an individual SImode-sized
register, so from that point of view, the example already implies that the
byte offset must correspond to a register boundary. So I was afraid
that the new sentence might be read more generally as "whenever you're
accessing one register in a multi-register value, whatever its mode,
the byte offset must be aligned to a register boundary.", especially
given that this paragraph flows into one that reads:
Storing in a non-paradoxical @code{subreg} has undefined results for
bits belonging to the same word as the @code{subreg}. This laxity makes
it easier to generate efficient code for such instructions. To
represent an instruction that preserves all the bits outside of those in
the @code{subreg}, use @code{strict_low_part} around the @code{subreg}.
Richard