On Tue, 2023-04-04 at 16:00 +0800, Xi Ruoyao via Gcc-patches wrote:
> 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.)
V2 sent with test cases fixed.
/* snip */
> 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.
Will do this later because I'm too stupid to understand
loongarch_first_stack_step function quickly :).
--
Xi Ruoyao <xry...@xry111.site>
School of Aerospace Science and Technology, Xidian University
