i370 port
Paul Edwards
mutazilah@gmail.com
Wed Nov 4 05:21:00 GMT 2009
>> C:\devel\gccnew\gcc>gccmvs -DUSE_MEMMGR -Os -S -ansi -pedantic-errors -DHAVE_CON
>> FIG_H -DIN_GCC -DPUREISO -I ../../pdos/pdpclib -I . -I config/i370 -I
>> ../include
>> varasm.c
>> (insn 117 429 118 7 (parallel [
>> (set (reg:SI 64)
>> (compare:SI (mem/s:BLK (plus:SI (reg/f:SI 21
>> virtual-stack-vars)
>>
>> (const_int 456 [0x1c8])) [232 value+0 S196
>> A64])
>> (mem:BLK (plus:SI (reg/v/f:SI 61 [ desc ])
>> (const_int 8 [0x8])) [0 A8])))
>> (use (const_int 196 [0xc4]))
>> ]) -1 (nil)
>> (nil))
>> varasm.c: In function `force_const_mem':
>> varasm.c:3021: internal compiler error: in
>> instantiate_virtual_regs_lossage,
>> at function.c:3767
>
> OK, so what goes on here is that GCC attempts to replace the "virtual"
> register 21 (virtual-stack-vars) with some real register, that is
> frame pointer + STARTING_FRAME_OFFSET. It seems for the i370 port,
> this should resolve to
> register 13 + STACK_POINTER_OFFSET + current_function_outgoing_args_size
>
> Overall, the middle-end would therefore replace "reg 21 + 456" with
> "reg 13 + X", where X is constant computed from 456 + STACK_POINTER_OFFSET
> + current_function_outgoing_args_size.
>
> It will then re-process the insn pattern constraints to verify that the
> resulting insn is still valid. At this stage, it appears we're running
> into the above error. I'm not quite sure why this would be case, this
> will require some further debugging why the insn was not recognized ...
This mystery is finally solved.
The previous workaround I had in place failed when I tried to do an
unoptimized compile of varasm.c. I found this out when I tried speeding
up the experimental configure/make process. However, since it was
occurring with unoptimized compiles, I thought it would be easier to
track down, and indeed, I found out that the memcmp was only
failing for values 128 and above. 127 was working fine. That made me
suspect a signed char vs unsigned char problem.
And it's the "QI" below that was causing the grief ...
*** 699,711 ****
{
op2 = gen_rtx_MEM (BLKmode, copy_to_mode_reg (SImode, op2));
}
!
! /* one circumstance has been found where this short comparison
! causes an internal error. Could be related to the fact that
! both displacements were non-zero, which is unusual. So check
! for that */
! if (((iv1 == 0) || (iv2 == 0)) &&
! GET_CODE (operands[3]) == CONST_INT && INTVAL (operands[3]) < 256)
{
emit_insn (gen_rtx_PARALLEL (VOIDmode, gen_rtvec (2,
gen_rtx_SET (VOIDmode, operands[0],
--- 697,705 ----
{
op2 = gen_rtx_MEM (BLKmode, copy_to_mode_reg (SImode, op2));
}
!
! if (GET_CODE (operands[3]) == CONST_INT
! && (unsigned)INTVAL (operands[3]) < 256)
{
emit_insn (gen_rtx_PARALLEL (VOIDmode, gen_rtvec (2,
gen_rtx_SET (VOIDmode, operands[0],
***************
*** 747,753 ****
[(set (match_operand:SI 0 "register_operand" "=d")
(compare:SI (match_operand:BLK 1 "s_operand" "m")
(match_operand:BLK 2 "s_operand" "m")))
! (use (match_operand:QI 3 "immediate_operand" "I"))]
"((unsigned) INTVAL (operands[3]) < 256)"
"*
{
--- 741,747 ----
[(set (match_operand:SI 0 "register_operand" "=d")
(compare:SI (match_operand:BLK 1 "s_operand" "m")
(match_operand:BLK 2 "s_operand" "m")))
! (use (match_operand:SI 3 "immediate_operand" "I"))]
"((unsigned) INTVAL (operands[3]) < 256)"
"*
{
The QI must be a signed char, and thus rejecting any value greater than 127.
As you can see, I changed it to SI, which, with the constraints and tests
in place, should be fine.
Just to be sure, I did a before and after comparison of the generated
assembler for all of GCC (3.4.6) and it all checked out fine. :-)
BFN. Paul.
More information about the Gcc
mailing list