This is the mail archive of the 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: Inconsistent initialization for pic_offset_table_rtx?

2016-02-09 17:27 GMT+03:00 Bin.Cheng <>:
> On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 10:32 AM, Ilya Enkovich <> wrote:
>> 2016-02-04 19:16 GMT+03:00 Bin.Cheng <>:
>>> On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 3:18 PM, Ilya Enkovich <> wrote:
>>>> 2016-02-04 17:12 GMT+03:00 Bin.Cheng <>:
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>> I noticed that pic_offset_table_rtx is initialized twice in GCC.  Take
>>>>> x86_32 as an example.
>>>>> The first initialization is done in emit_init_regs, with below code:
>>>>>   pic_offset_table_rtx = NULL_RTX;
>>>>>     pic_offset_table_rtx = gen_raw_REG (Pmode, PIC_OFFSET_TABLE_REGNUM);
>>>>> On x86_32 with pic, we have:
>>>>> (gdb) call debug_rtx(this_target_rtl->x_pic_offset_table_rtx)
>>>>> (reg:SI 3 bx)
>>>>> The second initialization is in expand_used_vars, with below code:
>>>>>   if (targetm.use_pseudo_pic_reg ())
>>>>>     pic_offset_table_rtx = gen_reg_rtx (Pmode);
>>>>> On x86_32 with pic, we have:
>>>>> (gdb) call debug_rtx(this_target_rtl->x_pic_offset_table_rtx)
>>>>> (reg:SI 87)
>>>>> So basically after expanding the first function, pic_offset_table_rtx
>>>>> is set to a pseudo register, rather than the one initialized in
>>>>> emit_init_regs.
>>>>> Also this causes inconsistent compilation for the first/rest functions
>>>>> in one compilation unit.
>>>>> A bug?
>>>> For i386 target PIC_OFFSET_TABLE_REGNUM actually checks
>>>> ix86_use_pseudo_pic_reg and is supposed to return INVALID_REGNUM
>>>> in case we use pseudo register for PIC. BUT we hit a case when PIC
>>>> code is generated for cost estimation via target hooks while performing
>>>> some GIMPLE pass. In this case we need to return some register to
>>> Thanks IIya.  This is exact the case I ran into.  See PR69042.
>>>> generate PIC usage but we don't have any allocated. In this case we
>>>> return a hard register. We detect such situation by checking
>>>> pic_offset_table_rtx.
>>>> Thus if we use pseudo PIC register but pic_offset_table_rtx is not
>>>> initialized yet,
>>>> then PIC_OFFSET_TABLE_REGNUM returns a hard register.
>>>> So I suppose we may consider the first assignment as a bug.
>>> But I don't quite follow.  So hard register is returned so that gimple
>>> passes can construct PIC related addresses?  If this is the case, the
>>> first initialization is necessary.
>> Right, we need some initialization but current way leads to inconsistent
>> value and we may 'randomly' get hard or pseudo register for different functions
>> which possibly affects some optimizations. We probably need a better
>> way to check if we should return a hard reg for PIC register. Or maybe
>> reset ix86_use_pseudo_pic_reg to NULL when function is finalized or
>> get rid of hard reg at all and always use a pseudo register.
>>> Another question is about address cost:
>>>   if (parts.index
>>>       && (!REG_P (parts.index) || REGNO (parts.index) >= FIRST_PSEUDO_REGISTER)
>>>       && (current_pass->type == GIMPLE_PASS
>>>       || !pic_offset_table_rtx
>>>       || !REG_P (parts.index)
>>>       || REGNO (pic_offset_table_rtx) != REGNO (parts.index)))
>>>     cost++;
>>> Is it a bug in the second sub condition?  Considering
>>> "current_pass->type == GIMPLE_PASS" in the third sub condition, can I
>>> assume the second is for non-GIMPLE passes only?
>> There is just a code duplicated for parts.base and parts.index
>> registers. We use same
>> conditions for both of them because you can easily swap them if scale is 1.
>> I don't know why we don't try to recognize PIC registers when in GIMPLE pass.
> Could we define PIC_OFFSET_TABLE_REGNUM to a pseudo register when
> ix86_use_pseudo_pic_reg returns true, as in this case?  Current logic
> doesn't look consistent to me.  Of course, I know little about x86.

I agree it looks inconsistent.  But I don't think PIC_OFFSET_TABLE_REGNUM is
supposed to return pseudo regno.  Using EBX_REG value for this macro was a
workaround for problem of NULL pic_offset_table_rtx usage in cost
functions. I think
we should try to initialize pic_offset_table_rtx with some pseudo
register in i386
target for cost estimation purposes and always return INVALID_REG for


> Thanks,
> bin
>> Thanks,
>> Ilya
>>> Thanks,
>>> bin
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Ilya
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> bin

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