Hi Adhermerval,
The argument code looks good now, but this isn't right:
+ int ninsn = aarch64_internal_mov_immediate (reg10, GEN_INT (-allocate),
+ true, Pmode);
+ gcc_assert (ninsn == 1 || ninsn == 2);
+ if (ninsn == 1)
+ {
+ if (allocate >
On 25/01/2017 10:10, Jiong Wang wrote:
> On 24/01/17 18:05, Adhemerval Zanella wrote:
>>
>> On 03/01/2017 13:13, Wilco Dijkstra wrote:
>>
>>> + /* If function uses stacked arguments save the old stack value so
>>> morestack
>>> + can return it. */
>>> + reg11 = gen_rtx_REG (Pmode, R11_REG
On 24/01/17 18:05, Adhemerval Zanella wrote:
On 03/01/2017 13:13, Wilco Dijkstra wrote:
+ /* If function uses stacked arguments save the old stack value so morestack
+ can return it. */
+ reg11 = gen_rtx_REG (Pmode, R11_REGNUM);
+ if (cfun->machine->frame.saved_regs_size
+ || cfun
On 03/01/2017 13:13, Wilco Dijkstra wrote:
> Adhemerval Zanella wrote:
>
> Sorry for the late reply - but I think it's getting there. A few more
> comments:
No worries.
>
> + /* If function uses stacked arguments save the old stack value so morestack
> + can return it. */
> + reg11
Adhemerval Zanella wrote:
Sorry for the late reply - but I think it's getting there. A few more comments:
+ /* If function uses stacked arguments save the old stack value so morestack
+ can return it. */
+ reg11 = gen_rtx_REG (Pmode, R11_REGNUM);
+ if (cfun->machine->frame.saved_regs_si
On 15/11/2016 16:38, Wilco Dijkstra wrote:
>
> On 07/11/2016 16:59, Adhemerval Zanella wrote:
>> On 14/10/2016 15:59, Wilco Dijkstra wrote:
>
>> There is no limit afaik on gold split stack allocation handling,
>> and I think one could be added for each backend (in the method
>> override require
On 07/11/2016 16:59, Adhemerval Zanella wrote:
> On 14/10/2016 15:59, Wilco Dijkstra wrote:
> There is no limit afaik on gold split stack allocation handling,
> and I think one could be added for each backend (in the method
> override require to implement it).
>
> In fact it is not really requir
Ping.
On 07/11/2016 16:59, Adhemerval Zanella wrote:
>
>
> On 14/10/2016 15:59, Wilco Dijkstra wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>
> Thanks for the thoughtful review and sorry for late response.
>
>>> Split-stack prologue on function entry is as follow (this goes before the
>>> usual function prologue):
>>
>>
On 14/10/2016 15:59, Wilco Dijkstra wrote:
> Hi,
>
Thanks for the thoughtful review and sorry for late response.
>> Split-stack prologue on function entry is as follow (this goes before the
>> usual function prologue):
>
>> mrsx9, tpidr_el0
>> movx10, -
>
> As Jiong alread
Hi,
> Split-stack prologue on function entry is as follow (this goes before the
> usual function prologue):
> mrsx9, tpidr_el0
> movx10, -
As Jiong already remarked, the nop won't work. Do we know the maximum adjustment
that the linker is allowed to make? If so, and we can li
Hi Adhemerval,
On 06/10/16 22:54, Adhemerval Zanella wrote:
+ bool split_stack_arg_pointer_used = split_stack_arg_pointer_used_p ();
if (flag_stack_usage_info)
current_function_static_stack_size = frame_size;
@@ -3220,6 +3264,10 @@ aarch64_expand_prologue (void)
aarch64_em
On 11/10/16 20:39, Adhemerval Zanella wrote:
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/split-3.c b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/split-3.c
index 64bbb8c..5ba7616 100644
--- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/split-3.c
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/split-3.c
@@ -40,6 +40,7 @@ down (int i, ...)
|| va_arg (ap, in
On 07/10/2016 05:28, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
> Hi Adhemerval,
>
> CC'ing the aarch64 maintainers/reviewers.
> I have some comments inline, mostly about the GCC coding conventions.
Thanks for the review.
>> diff --git a/gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64.c b/gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64.c
>> index df6514d.
From: Adhemerval Zanella
Changes from previous version:
- Rewrite how to setup variadic argument: instead of using the
hard_fp_offset value to setup the x10, save a fp value before stack
allocation instead. This allows linker/gold to not require scan
and change in case of split to non
14 matches
Mail list logo
