Special Memory Constraint [was Re: Indirect memory addresses vs. lra]

[Vladimir Makarov]

On 2019-08-16 7:23 a.m., John Darrington wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 02:23:45PM -0400, Vladimir Makarov wrote:
>
>       > I tried this solution earlier.  But unfortunately it makes things worse.  What happens is it libgcc cannot
>       > even be built -- ICEs occur on a memory from  address reg insn such as:
>       > (insn 117 2981 3697 5 (set (mem/f:PSI (plus:PSI (reg:PSI 1309)
>       >                  (const_int 102 [0x66])) [3 fs_129(D)->pc+0 S4 A8])
>       > 		        (reg:PSI 1310)) "/home/jmd/Source/GCC2/libgcc/unwind-dw2.c":977:9 96 {movpsi}
>       >
>       I see.?? Then for the insn, you could try to create a pattern
>       "memory,special memory constraint".?? The special memory constraint
>       should satisfy only spilled pseudo (pseudo with reg_renumber == -1).?? I
>       believe lra-constraints.c can spill the pseudo and the end you will have
>       mem[disp1 + r8|r9|sp] = mem[disp1+sp].
>
> You mean something like this:
>
> (define_special_memory_constraint "a"
>   "My special memory constraint"
>   (match_operand 0 "my_special_predicate")
> )
>
> (define_predicate "my_special_predicate"
> 		    (match_operand 0 "memory_operand")
>   {
>    debug_rtx (op);
>    if (MEM_P (op))
>    {
>      op = XEXP (op, 0);
>      if (GET_CODE (op) == PLUS)
>        {
> 	op = XEXP (op, 0);
> 	if (REG_P (op))
> 	  {
> 	    fprintf (stderr, "Reg number is %d\n", REGNO (op));
> 	    if (REGNO (op) >= 0)
> 	      return false;
> 	  }
>        }
>    }
>    return true;
> })

No I meant something like that

(define_special_memory_constraint "a" ...)
(define_predicate "my_special_predicate" ...
		
  {
    if (lra_in_progress_p)
      return REG_P (op) && REGNO (op) >= FIRST_PSEUDO_REGISTER && reg_renumber[REGNO(op)] < 0;
    return true if memory with sp addressing;
})

I think LRA spills pseudo-register and it will be memory addressed by sp 
at the end of LRA.

> When I use this I get lots of the following ICEs
>
>       "internal compiler error: maximum number of generated reload insns per insn achieved (90)"
>
> It seems logical to me that this would happen since the constraint is not going to match any
> operand with resolved registers.  Thus it will continually reload.
>
> ... which makes me think I've probably misunderstood what you are saying.
>
> J'
>
>