On 11/16/22 03:26, Manolis Tsamis wrote:
On Sun, Nov 13, 2022 at 3:33 AM Jeff Law via Gcc-patches
<gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
On 11/7/22 15:07, Palmer Dabbelt wrote:
On Thu, 03 Nov 2022 15:23:28 PDT (-0700), j...@ventanamicro.com wrote:
On 11/2/22 18:26, Palmer Dabbelt wrote:
I also tried to remove that restriction but it looks like it can't
work because we can't create
pseudo-registers during shrink wrapping and shrink wrapping can't
work either.
I believe this means that shrink wrapping cannot interfere with a
long
stack frame
so there is nothing to test against in this case?
It'd be marginally better to have such a test case to ensure we don't
shrink wrap it -- that would ensure that someone doesn't accidentally
introduce shrink wrapping with large offsets. Just a bit of future
proofing.
If there's passing test cases that fail with that check removed then
it's probably good enough, though I think in this case just having a
comment there saying why the short-stack check is necessary should be
fine.
I can live with this.
Which one (or either)? I'm fine with either option, just trying to
avoid another re-spin as this one is a bit vague.
Sorry I wasn't clear. Either is fine with me.
Since all issues/concerns around this are resolved, is the v2 of this patch
good for merging?
Link for v2 patch is
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2022-October/603822.html
You just need to add a comment to get_separate_components indicating
that the SMALL_OPERAND_P check is required as we do not support
shrink-wrapping with large stack frames.
OK with that comment. Just post the final version and commit, no need
to wait for another review.
jeff
