This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [4.2 only] RFA: PR 33848: reload rematerialisation of labels
Eric Botcazou <email@example.com> writes:
>> But that's the whole idea. There should be no cases in which register
>> allocation (viewed as a black box) changes the JUMP_LABEL.
> What do you mean by 'should'? 'Cannot but I'm not sure', 'Cannot modulo
> bugs'? Because Andrew's change precisely does that and was OKed by RTH.
Cannot modulo bugs. I've already explained why I think my patch solves
Andrew's bug too. It sounds like you think I'm reverting to the situation
before Andrew's patch, but I'm not really. Before Andrew's patch, we dealt
incorrectly with the case where the JUMP_LABEL is not the LABEL_REF we're
(a) If the JUMP_LABEL was null, we could turn a computed jump into
something that neither a computed jump (because of the REG_LABEL
note) nor an indirect jump with a known target (because of the
null JUMP_LABEL). This led to an ICE in cfgbuild.
For avoidance of doubt, this case arose when we had a computed
jump whose target didn't get allocated a hard register, but that
was known to be equivalent to a LABEL_REF. We'd replace the
target with the LABEL_REF and reload it, and we'd then hit this
REG_LABEL code when replacing the LABEL_REF with the reload register.
(b) If the JUMP_LABEL was some other label, we'd make the JUMP_LABEL
inconsistent with the REG_LABEL, thus potentially changing the
JUMP_LABEL when rebuild_jump_labels is next called.
So Andrew's patch and mine are dealing with the same case: where the
LABEL_REF we're replacing is not the JUMP_LABEL. Andrew's PR was an
example of (a) and mine is an example of (b). Andrew's patch fixed
(a) by making the LABEL_REF the JUMP_LABEL too, thus transforming a
computed jump into an indirect jump with a known target. My patch
fixes (a) by stopping us from adding the note in that case, so that
the jump in Andrew's PR remains a computed jump. As I said before,
transforming a computed jump into an indirect jump to a known target,
as Andrew did, is a nice CFG optimisation, but not one we should do here.
It certainly shouldn't be conditional on the register allocators failing
to find a home for the jump target register (as was the case in Andrew's PR).