On Tue, 2023-04-04 at 11:01 +0800, Lulu Cheng wrote:
/* snip */
> > +unsigned long f10 (unsigned long x) { return x - 0x80000000l * 2; }
> > +unsigned long f11 (unsigned long x) { return x - 0x80000000l * 2; }
> These two test cases are duplicates.
/* snip */
>
> > +unsigned int g10 (unsigned int x) { return x - 0x80000000l * 2; }
> > +unsigned int g11 (unsigned int x) { return x - 0x80000000l * 2; }
> Ditto.
I'll fix them in V2.
> I found that adding this log test case
> gcc.target/loongarch/stack-check-cfa-1.c and
> gcc.target/loongarch/stack-check-cfa-2.c test failed.
> Although the test fails, the generated assembly code is better, and there is
> no problem with the logic of the assembly code. I haven't checked the reason
> for this yet.
Looks like the change hides PR109035 (like -fpie) for some reason. (But
I still don't understand the root cause of PR109035 anyway.)
f_test:
.LFB0 = .
.cfi_startproc
lu12i.w $r14,65536>>12 # 0x10000
sub.d $r3,$r3,$r14
st.d $r0,$r3,0
sub.d $r3,$r3,$r14
st.d $r0,$r3,0
.cfi_def_cfa_offset 131072
lu12i.w $r13,131072>>12 #
0x20000
or $r12,$r3,$r0
ldx.b $r4,$r12,$r4
add.d $r3,$r3,$r13
.cfi_def_cfa_offset 0
jr $r1
.cfi_endproc
Technically there should be "addu16i.d $r3,$r3,-1" in the prologue and
"addu16i.d $r3,$r3,2" in the epilogue, so we can avoid using r14/r13.
I'll try modifying loongarch_expand_{pro,epi}logue for this.
--
Xi Ruoyao <xry...@xry111.site>
School of Aerospace Science and Technology, Xidian University
