On 22 March 2011 14:56, David Edelsohn <dje....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 9:25 AM, Simon Baldwin <sim...@google.com> wrote:
> > I'm currently trying to backport a small part of gcc 4.5 r151729 to
> > gcc 4.4.3. This revision fixes a problem in powerpc code generation
> > that leads to gcc not using lmw/stmw instructions in function prologue
> > and epilogues, where it could otherwise validly use them.
> >
> > On the face of things, the central piece of r151729 I seem to want is just
> > this:
> >
> > Index: gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.c
> > ===================================================================
> > --- gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.c (revision 151728)
> > +++ gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.c (revision 151729)
> > @@ -18033,7 +18033,8 @@ static bool
> > no_global_regs_above (int first, bool gpr)
> > {
> > int i;
> > - for (i = first; i < gpr ? 32 : 64 ; i++)
> > + int last = gpr ? 32 : 64;
> > + for (i = first; i < last; i++)
> > if (global_regs[i])
> > return false;
> > return true;
> >
> > Taking only that and leaving out all of the rest of r151729 lets me
> > build a powerpc gcc that does use lmw/stmw instructions in function
> > prologue and epilogues as hoped. Unfortunately it also has bad
> > codegen elsewhere. So it seems I need more than just this little
> > piece of r151729. Unfortunately, r151729 is a fairly large patch that
> > seems to do a number of jobs and which does not apply readily to gcc
> > 4.4. At the moment it's not clear to me what other parts of it I
> > might need.
> >
> > Can anyone here offer any hints or pointers on how to extract from the
> > r151729 diff just the few pieces needed to fix this single powerpc
> > codegen bug in gcc 4.4.3? Anyone recognize this issue and already
> > dealt with it in isolation?
>
> The change to no_global_regs_above() is one of the key pieces, but
> that change exposed other latent bugs, as you have encountered. One
> needs the additional patches to the save/restore strategy routines and
> prologue/epilogue. This is why the entire patch was committed in one
> piece.
Thanks for the reply, David. I'll take another look and see if I can
abstract out just the required pieces. In practice, though, it looks
like it may be easier for me to just upgrade to gcc 4.5 or 4.6.
Certainly safer.
--
Google UK Limited | Registered Office: Belgrave House, 76 Buckingham
Palace Road, London SW1W 9TQ | Registered in England Number: 3977902
