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: m68k compiler does not build

On Thu, May 13, 2004 at 10:58:36AM -0400, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> NO_FUNCTION_CSE means that gcc should not try to optimize function
> calls by storing the address of the function in a register and then
> doing calls via the register.  This is defined by most targets.

  I never noticed that. Since m68k (my main target) does function_cse
  I assumed that its valuable optimization done on all supported GCC

> This seems reasonable, as most modern processors have a call instruction
> which is more efficient than the instructions required to load a
> function address.  However, this is probably not true of the m68k--the
> m68k has a two-byte call register instruction, but a call to a
> function is ordinarily a six-byte instruction.  I would guess that
> call to register is faster, so it is reasonable that the m68k does not

  A word relative branch takes 4 bytes and its short form 2 bytes.
  Then function CSE is not always beneficial: it eats up a register and
  requires a move if GCC stored the function address in a data register
  since indirect branches have to be done through an address register.
  I wonder if functions-cse is really beneficial for m68k.
> Defining NO_RECURSIVE_FUNCTION_CSE means that gcc should not perform
> this optimization when making a recursive call.  Unfortunately, I
> can't think of any target specific reason why this makes sense.  I
> could imagine that it would be a bad idea in general, since it would
> make the compiler less likely to recognize a case of tail recursion.
> However, I can't think of any reason why on the m68k in particular it
> is better to use an explicit call only when doing a recursive call.

  Maybe the call can use the relative byte (bsr.b) or word (bsr.w) calls
  (as long as the function size does not exceed 32k)?

> It seems to me that we should just remove the macro
> NO_RECURSIVE_FUNCTION_CSE from the compiler.  Unfortunately, with no
> an m68k simulator, there is no easy way for me to test the effects of
> this on the m68k.  However, it seems unlikely to be a correctness
> issue.

  Then its an efficiency issue.

> So I propose this patch.  This at least lets the m68k compiler build.
> Even if approved, I'll run the m68k compiler tests before checking
> this in, but I don't have any way to do any further testing.

  I have an m68k system but I never tried to boostrap any 3.x version.
  Once I did an unoptimized 3.2.2 build with only C enabled. I always
  cross-build a native GCC version.
  I don't think m68k will break if NO_RECURSIVE_FUNCTION_CSE is removed.


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