Hi,
On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 12:15:10PM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 03/27/2017 05:40 AM, Martin Liška wrote:
> > Hello.
> >
> > There's alternative approach suggested by Martin Jambor.
> > Patch can bootstrap on ppc64le-redhat-linux and survives regression tests
> > and
> > s390x cross compiler does not ICE.
> >
> > Martin
> >
> > 2017-03-23 Martin Liska <mli...@suse.cz>
> >
> > PR ipa/80104
> > * cgraphunit.c (cgraph_node::expand_thunk): Mark argument of a
> > thunk call as DECL_GIMPLE_REG_P when vector or complex type.
> Can you fix the documentation for DECL_GIMPLE_REG_P to indiate that it can
> be set on parameters.
>
> In gimplify_function_tree we have this:
>
> for (parm = DECL_ARGUMENTS (fndecl); parm ; parm = DECL_CHAIN (parm))
> {
> /* Preliminarily mark non-addressed complex variables as eligible
> for promotion to gimple registers. We'll transform their uses
> as we find them. */
> if ((TREE_CODE (TREE_TYPE (parm)) == COMPLEX_TYPE
> || TREE_CODE (TREE_TYPE (parm)) == VECTOR_TYPE)
> && !TREE_THIS_VOLATILE (parm)
> && !needs_to_live_in_memory (parm))
> DECL_GIMPLE_REG_P (parm) = 1;
> }
>
> Aren't you essentially doing the same thing for thunks?
Yes.
> Does it make sense
> to pull that into a little function and just call it from both places?
Possibly...
>
> If not, do we need to add the !TREE_THIS_VOLATILE and
> !needs_to_live_in_memory checks to the thunks version?
...although if any of these checks fail, the bug will re-surface.
I do not really know what a volatile parameter means, let alone a
volatile parameter of a hunk. Unless, I am mistaken, hunk parameters
are never made TREE_ADDRESSABLE, so needs_to_live_in_memory can be
omitted.
>
> Generally OK, just want to work through these couple niggling details.
>
Thanks for looking at this,
Martin
