On 25/03/14 08:13, Zhenqiang Chen wrote:
> Hi
>
> The patch enables shrink-wrap for apcs frame.
>
> Bootstrap and no make check regression in ARM, THUMB1 and THUMB2 modes.
> No make check regression with "-g/-mapcs/-marm".
> Build linux-3.14-rc7 without error.
>
> Is it OK for next stage1?
>
> Thanks!
> -Zhenqiang
>
> ChangeLog:
> 2014-03-25 Zhenqiang Chen <zhenqiang.c...@linaro.org>
>
> * config/arm/arm.c (arm_option_override): Enable shrink-wrap for
> TARGET_APCS_FRAME.
> (arm_emit_multi_reg_pop): Set correct dwarf info.
> (arm_expand_epilogue_apcs_frame): Add more dwarf info.
>
> testsuite/ChangeLog:
> 2014-03-25 Zhenqiang Chen <zhenqiang.c...@linaro.org>
>
> * gcc.target/arm/shrink-wrap-alloca.c: New test case.
> * gcc.target/arm/shrink-wrap-sibcall.c: New test case.
>
> diff --git a/gcc/config/arm/arm.c b/gcc/config/arm/arm.c
> index 0240cc7..fa86942 100644
> --- a/gcc/config/arm/arm.c
> +++ b/gcc/config/arm/arm.c
> @@ -2811,9 +2811,6 @@ arm_option_override (void)
> generate additional returns. */
> if (optimize_function_for_size_p (cfun) && TARGET_THUMB2)
> flag_shrink_wrap = false;
> - /* TBD: Dwarf info for apcs frame is not handled yet. */
> - if (TARGET_APCS_FRAME)
> - flag_shrink_wrap = false;
>
> /* We only support -mslow-flash-data on armv7-m targets. */
> if (target_slow_flash_data
> @@ -19840,7 +19837,14 @@ arm_emit_multi_reg_pop (unsigned long
> saved_regs_mask)
> par = emit_insn (par);
>
> REG_NOTES (par) = dwarf;
> - if (!return_in_pc)
> +
> + if (!emit_update)
> + {
> + /* SP is restored from stack. So reset the frame info. */
> + RTX_FRAME_RELATED_P (par) = 1;
> + add_reg_note (par, REG_CFA_DEF_CFA, stack_pointer_rtx);
> + }
> + else if (!return_in_pc)
> arm_add_cfa_adjust_cfa_note (par, UNITS_PER_WORD * num_regs,
> stack_pointer_rtx, stack_pointer_rtx);
> }
> @@ -27226,6 +27230,9 @@ arm_expand_epilogue_apcs_frame (bool really_return)
> REG_NOTES (insn) = alloc_reg_note (REG_CFA_RESTORE,
> gen_rtx_REG (SImode, IP_REGNUM),
> NULL_RTX);
> + arm_add_cfa_adjust_cfa_note (insn, UNITS_PER_WORD,
> + stack_pointer_rtx,
> + stack_pointer_rtx);
This can't be related to $SUBJECT, surely? Shrink-wrapping an interrupt
routine?
If this is as I think, please resubmit that part as a separate patch.
The other changes look ok.
R.
> }
>
> if (!really_return || (saved_regs_mask & (1 << PC_REGNUM)))
> diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/shrink-wrap-alloca.c
> b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/shrink-wrap-alloca.c
> new file mode 100644
> index 0000000..318240b
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/shrink-wrap-alloca.c
> @@ -0,0 +1,11 @@
> +/* { dg-do compile } */
> +/* { dg-options "-O2 -g -mapcs " } */
> +
> +int *p;
> +
> +void
> +test (int a)
> +{
> + if (a > 0)
> + p = __builtin_alloca (4);
> +}
> diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/shrink-wrap-sibcall.c
> b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/shrink-wrap-sibcall.c
> new file mode 100644
> index 0000000..2efe5d0
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/shrink-wrap-sibcall.c
> @@ -0,0 +1,26 @@
> +/* { dg-do compile } */
> +/* { dg-options "-O2 -g -mapcs " } */
> +
> +unsigned char a, b, d, f, g;
> +
> +int test (void);
> +
> +int
> +baz (int c)
> +{
> + if (c == 0) return test ();
> + if (b & 1)
> + {
> + g = 0;
> + int e = (a & 0x0f) - (g & 0x0f);
> +
> + if (!a) b |= 0x80;
> + a = e + test ();
> + f = g/5 + a*3879 + b *2985;
> + }
> + else
> + {
> + f = g + a*39879 + b *25;
> + }
> + return test ();
> +}
>
