On 8/10/19 2:05 AM, John Darrington wrote:
On Fri, Aug 09, 2019 at 01:34:36PM -0400, Vladimir Makarov wrote:
If you provide LRA dump for such test (it is better to use
-fira-verbose=15 to output full RA info into stderr), I
probably could
say more.
I've attached such a dump (generated from
gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/compile/pr53410-2.c).
The less regs the architecture has, thoke easier to run into
such error
message if something described wrong in the back-end.?? I see
your
architecture is 16-bit micro-controller with only 8 regs, some
of them is
specialized.?? So your architecture is really register
constrained.
That's not quite correct. It is a 24-bit micro-controller (the
address
space is 24 bits wide). There are 2 address registers (plus stack
pointer and program counter) and there are 8 general purpose data
registers (of differing sizes).
J'
Thank you for providing the sources. It helped me to understand what
is
going on. So the test crashes on
/home/jmd/Source/GCC2/gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/compile/pr53410-2.c:
In function ‘f1’:
/home/jmd/Source/GCC2/gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/compile/pr53410-2.c:10:1:
error: unable to find a register to spill
/home/jmd/Source/GCC2/gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/compile/pr53410-2.c:10:1:
error: this is the insn:
(insn 14 49 15 2 (set (mem:SI (plus:PSI (reg/f:PSI 40 [34])
(const_int 32 [0x20])) [2 S4 A64])
(mem:SI (reg:PSI 41) [2 *p_5(D)+0 S4 A8]))
"/home/jmd/Source/GCC2/gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/compile/pr53410-2.c":9:9
95 {*movsi}
(expr_list:REG_DEAD (reg:PSI 41)
(expr_list:REG_DEAD (reg/f:PSI 40 [34])
(nil))))
Your target has only 2 non-fixed addr registers (r8, r9). One (r9) is
defined as a hard reg pointer pointer. Honestly, I never saw a target
with such register constraints.
-O0 assumes -fno-omit-frame-pointer. So in -O0 mode we have only *one*
free addr reg for insn which requires *2* of them. That is why the GCC
port crashes on this test. If you add -fomit-frame-pointer, the test
succeeds.
But even if use -fomit-frame-pointer, it is not guaranteed that hard
reg pointer will be substituted by stack pointer. There are many cases
where it is not possible (e.g. in case of alloca usage).
So what can be done, imho. The simplest solution would be preventing
insns with more one memory operand. The more difficult solution would
be permitting two memory one with address pseudo and another one with
stack pointer.