This is the mail archive of the gcc@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]

Re: Reserving a number of consecutive registers


Ok, I added a df_analyze at the beginning of my target reorg function
and now it works. Is there anything I should add to cleanup afterwards
?

Sorry about this, I'm slowly learning different parts of the GCC
compiler as I go,
Thanks again for all your help,
Jc

On Fri, May 1, 2009 at 4:33 PM, Jean Christophe Beyler
<jean.christophe.beyler@gmail.com> wrote:
> Yes, I have done that and now am looking to limit those numbers. For
> example, I don't copy back the ones that are not live-out registers.
> It works well but I am have an issue when recompiling the whole
> compiler.
>
> I've simplified this to this, if in my reorg function, I do only this ?:
>
> ? ?FOR_EACH_BB (bb)
> ? ?{
> ? ? ? ?bitmap regs_forw = BITMAP_ALLOC (&reg_obstack);
> ? ? ? ?bitmap_copy (regs_forw, df_get_live_in (bb));
> ? ? ? ?BITMAP_FREE (regs_forw);
> ? ?}
>
> It fails here:
> /home/beyler/cyclops64/src/cyclops64-gcc-4.3.2/libgcc/../gcc/libgcc2.c:
> In function '__divdi3':
> /home/beyler/cyclops64/src/cyclops64-gcc-4.3.2/libgcc/../gcc/libgcc2.c:1102:
> internal compiler error: Segmentation fault
>
> I'm looking into that now, am I allowed to be doing this in the reorg ?
> #0 ?df_get_live_in (bb=0xb7a9c8ac) at
> /home/beyler/cyclops64/src/cyclops64-gcc-4.3.2/gcc/df-problems.c:93
> 93 ? ? ? ? ?return DF_LR_IN (bb);
>
> Or is there a way to know if I'm allowed to do that copy?
> Thanks again,
> Jc
>
> On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 3:16 PM, Eric Botcazou <ebotcazou@adacore.com> wrote:
>>> Let's say I want to rename register r6 to r15. I can safely do that in
>>> the block if I know that r15 is not used in that basic block and that
>>> r6 is not a live-out of the basic block.
>>>
>>> However, how to handle the case where r6 is a live-out ? Then, I would
>>> have to make sure that r15 is not defined in another basic block, thus
>>> destroying my new live-out value?
>>>
>>> It seems to be a cat-mouse game:
>>>
>>> - I could copy back r15 to r6 in that case though I would like to try
>>> to not have to do that because that requires an extra copy at the end
>>> of the block
>>
>> Yes, you need to make a copy in this case but its cost could be offsetted by
>> the gain from the load_multiple. ?Or it could be eliminated by running a new
>> instance of cprop_hardreg. ?You need to experiment and tune the pass.
>>
>> --
>> Eric Botcazou
>>
>


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