[PATCH] Do not remove labels with LABEL_PRESERVE_P

Steven Bosscher stevenb.gcc@gmail.com
Wed Sep 24 10:36:00 GMT 2014

On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 11:57 AM, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
> 2014-09-24 13:30 GMT+04:00 Steven Bosscher :
>>> Description of LABEL_PRESERVE_P says label that should always be
>>> considered to be needed.
>> It's more specific than that, really:
>> @item LABEL_PRESERVE_P (@var{x})
>> In a @code{code_label} or @code{note}, indicates that the label is referenced by
>> code or data not visible to the RTL of a given function.
> I read another description:
> /* 1 if RTX is a code_label that should always be considered to be needed.  */
> #define LABEL_PRESERVE_P(RTX)                                           \

Yes, from rtl.h.

I'd recommend to always read the descriptions in doc/ (in this case
doc/rtl.texi). The "documentation" in the header files is often not
very comprehensive.

>> The "not visible" part is important. If there are visible references
>> to a label, then they should never be removed (obviously) and that
>> should work through LABEL_NUSES. Unfortunately we are not very good at
>> keeping LABEL_NUSES up-to-date (this is why all the
>> rebuild_jump_labels() are still required).
> Does rebuild handle all kinds of instructions including those which use UNSPEC?

Yes. Patterns are walked (deep) and REG_LABEL notes are added for all
labels encountered that are not already the JUMP_LABEL of INSN. If the
label is reachable from XEXP(UNSPEC, 0) -- the 'E' operand -- then
that label is visible.

>> What appears to be the case here, is that you have a label between two
>> basic blocks B1 and B2, and the label acts as a control flow barrier:
>> B1 and B2 cannot be merged. Then this should be expressed in the CFG.
>> Otherwise: What else prevents the merge_blocks CFG hooks from deleting
>> the label?
> Label acts as a barrier here but it is a side effect.  I don't care
> about block merging.  I just don't want label with usages to be
> removed.

Understood. Only, LABEL_PRESERVE_P is not the right means to achieve that.

So let's get back to basics and see what the usages look like. AFAIU
now, you emit the code label early, and add the references much later
(in machine reorg?). Does your UNSPEC have the code_label as an
operand? If so, what breaks if cfgcleanup removes the label? Is the
insn no longer recognized? Or does the label not end up in the
assembly output? Or ...? I can try to help figure out what breaks if
you have a test case.

FWIW, the LABEL_PRESERVE_P uses in config/i386/i386.c look suspect. It
probably only works because those labels are added late, and the code
paths that use (x86_64 large PIC code model) are not tested all that

>>> That means even if we do not have any usages
>>> we shouldn't remove it.
>> Sorry, no.
>> Even a LABEL_PRESERVE_P label can be deleted: It will be replaced by a
>> NOTE_INSN_DELETED_LABEL. See cfgrtl.c:delete_insn().
> According to description you quoted label marked by LABEL_PRESERVE_P
> is used by some code or data.  Let this use be not visible to the RTL
> of a given function.  It is still used, right? How can you remove it?

The code_label rtx is removed, but the label itself is still output to
the object file. The label number is retained in the CODE_LABEL_NUMBER
is handled in final.c. It's a hack IMHO, but that's how it has been
since day 0 (see https://gcc.gnu.org/r104).


More information about the Gcc-patches mailing list