This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH 2/6] Andes nds32: machine description of nds32 porting (2).
- From: Richard Sandiford <rdsandiford at googlemail dot com>
- To: Chung-Ju Wu <jasonwucj at gmail dot com>
- Cc: gcc-patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Sun, 06 Oct 2013 10:57:01 +0100
- Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/6] Andes nds32: machine description of nds32 porting (2).
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <CADj25HOO04tn85ZfL2adeHUo8EL7mGwFf8yB4CadofGCNVszVQ at mail dot gmail dot com> <Pine dot LNX dot 4 dot 64 dot 1307092324060 dot 29921 at digraph dot polyomino dot org dot uk> <51EFF7CA dot 6050601 at gmail dot com> <51F0F2F5 dot 6040905 at gmail dot com> <522CA258 dot 2010403 at gmail dot com> <87six7k4x5 dot fsf at talisman dot default> <5245CAF2 dot 2020106 at gmail dot com> <87had0lwyg dot fsf at talisman dot default> <525058A5 dot 4020504 at gmail dot com>
Chung-Ju Wu <jasonwucj@gmail.com> writes:
> On 10/2/13 1:31 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>> Chung-Ju Wu <jasonwucj@gmail.com> writes:
>>> + /* Use $r15, if the value is NOT in the range of Is20,
>>> + we must output "sethi + ori" directly since
>>> + we may already passed the split stage. */
>>> + return "sethi\t%0, hi20(%1)\;ori\t%0, %0, lo12(%1)";
>>> + case 17:
>>> + return "#";
>>
>> I don't really understand the comment for case 16. Returning "#"
>> (like for case 17) forces a split even at the output stage.
>>
>> In this case it might not be worth forcing a split though, so I don't
>> see any need to change the code. I think the comment should be changed
>> to give a different reason though.
>>
>
> Sorry for the misleading comment.
>
> For case 17, we were trying to split large constant into two individual
> rtx patterns into "sethi" + "addi" so that we can have chance to match
> "addi" pattern with 16-bit instruction.
>
> But case 16 is different.
> This case is only produced at prologue/epilogue phase, using a temporary
> register $r15 to hold a large constant for adjusting stack pointer.
> Since prologue/epilogue is after split1/split2 phase, we can only
> output "sethi" + "ori" directly.
> (The "addi" instruction with $r15 is a 32-bit instruction.)
But this code is in the output template of the define_insn. That code
is only executed during final, after all passes have been run. If the
template returns "#", final will split the instruction itself, which is
possible even at that late stage. "#" doesn't have any effect on the
passes themselves.
(FWIW, there's also a split3 pass that runs after prologue/epilogue
generation but before sched2.)
However, ISTR there is/was a rule that prologue instructions shouldn't
be split, since they'd lose their RTX_FRAME_RELATED_P bit or something.
Maybe you hit an ICE because of that?
Another way to handle this would be to have the movsi expander split
large constant moves. When can_create_pseudo_p (), the intermediate
results can be stored in new registers, otherwise they should reuse
operands[0]. Two advantages to doing it that way are that high parts
can be shared before RA, and that calls to emit_move_insn from the
prologue code will split the move automatically. I think many ports
do it that way (including MIPS FWIW).
Thanks,
Richard