> -----Original Message----- > From: Uros Bizjak <ubiz...@gmail.com> > Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2025 5:05 PM > To: Cui, Lili <lili....@intel.com> > Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org; Liu, Hongtao <hongtao....@intel.com>; > richard.guent...@gmail.com; Michael Matz <m...@suse.de> > Subject: Re: [PATCH V2] x86: Enable separate shrink wrapping > > On Thu, Jun 12, 2025 at 10:58 AM Uros Bizjak <ubiz...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Thu, Jun 12, 2025 at 9:26 AM Cui, Lili <lili....@intel.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > @@ -7753,8 +7762,12 @@ pro_epilogue_adjust_stack (rtx dest, rtx > > > > > src, rtx > > > > offset, > > > > > add_frame_related_expr = true; > > > > > } > > > > > > > > > > + if (crtl->shrink_wrapped_separate) insn = emit_insn > > > > > + (gen_rtx_SET > > > > > + (dest, gen_rtx_PLUS (Pmode, src, addend))); > > Please use > > > ix86_expand_binary_operator here, it will correctly > generate LEA > > > during pro/epilogue generation. Also, please check indenting. > > > > > > > Hi Uros, > > > > > > I'm confused here, ix86_expand_binary_operator cannot return insn, and > insn needs to be used later. Another thing is in ix86_expand_binary_operator, > if !rtx_equal_p (dst, src1), it will generate clobber for it. > > > > Oh, I missed this condition. The original is OK, but please add a > > comment why clobber-less LEA is required here. > > BTW: Do you need to clobber memory to prevent EBP based memory access > to get scheduled around the insn? >
Yes, you are right, clobber memory is safer, this should be consistent with before. Thanks, Lili. > Uros.
