| Message ID | AANLkTikCzuNHrgsg6AneUa1xffXqt8Hu+df4xtjCXO95@mail.gmail.com |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
"H.J. Lu" <hjl.tools@gmail.com> writes: > On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 6:15 AM, H.J. Lu <hjl.tools@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 7:38 PM, Ian Lance Taylor <iant@google.com> wrote: >>> "H.J. Lu" <hjl.tools@gmail.com> writes: >>> >>>> I found the problem when I am working on my vzeroupper change. >>>> The bad "split_stack_return" pattern makes it impossible for me >>>> to work on vzeroupper since gcc kept generating "ret $2" >>>> for my vzeroupper pattern. The split_stack_return issue wasted >>>> my time and blocked my vzeroupper change, which I want to finish during >>>> gcc summit. That is why I committed my change. >>> >>> I'm sorry for blocking your change. Still, we have an approval system >>> for a reason. >>> >>> Does this patch fix your problem? >>> >> >> I opened a bug: >> >> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46197 >> >> Ian, could you please took into it? Right now, "gcc -mavx -O3" generates >> garbage. >> > > I checked in this patch. OK I suppose, but, seriously: please do wait for approval. The system doesn't work when people just commit patches themselves. I've been running the testsuite on the patch, and I was going to commit it if the testsuite passed. Ian
On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 7:10 AM, Ian Lance Taylor <iant@google.com> wrote: > "H.J. Lu" <hjl.tools@gmail.com> writes: > >> On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 6:15 AM, H.J. Lu <hjl.tools@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 7:38 PM, Ian Lance Taylor <iant@google.com> wrote: >>>> "H.J. Lu" <hjl.tools@gmail.com> writes: >>>> >>>>> I found the problem when I am working on my vzeroupper change. >>>>> The bad "split_stack_return" pattern makes it impossible for me >>>>> to work on vzeroupper since gcc kept generating "ret $2" >>>>> for my vzeroupper pattern. The split_stack_return issue wasted >>>>> my time and blocked my vzeroupper change, which I want to finish during >>>>> gcc summit. That is why I committed my change. >>>> >>>> I'm sorry for blocking your change. Still, we have an approval system >>>> for a reason. >>>> >>>> Does this patch fix your problem? >>>> >>> >>> I opened a bug: >>> >>> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46197 >>> >>> Ian, could you please took into it? Right now, "gcc -mavx -O3" generates >>> garbage. >>> >> >> I checked in this patch. > > OK I suppose, but, seriously: please do wait for approval. The system > doesn't work when people just commit patches themselves. > Without the fix, "gcc -mavx -O3" generates garbage. That change only affects -fsplit-stack. Even if it isn't completely correct, at least it won't generate garbage.
Index: ChangeLog =================================================================== --- ChangeLog (revision 166000) +++ ChangeLog (working copy) @@ -1,3 +1,10 @@ +2010-10-27 Ian Lance Taylor <iant@google.com> + + PR target/46197 + * config/i386/i386.md (UNSPECV_SPLIT_STACK_RETURN): New. + (split_stack_return): Replace UNSPEC_STACK_CHECK with + UNSPECV_SPLIT_STACK_RETURN. + 2010-10-27 H.J. Lu <hongjiu.lu@intel.com> * config/i386/i386-protos.h (init_cumulative_args): Add an int. Index: config/i386/i386.md =================================================================== --- config/i386/i386.md (revision 166000) +++ config/i386/i386.md (working copy) @@ -261,6 +261,7 @@ UNSPECV_WRFSBASE UNSPECV_WRGSBASE UNSPECV_RDRAND + UNSPECV_SPLIT_STACK_RETURN ]) ;; Constants to represent pcomtrue/pcomfalse variants @@ -11752,7 +11753,7 @@ ;; instruction which the middle-end doesn't see. (define_insn "split_stack_return" [(unspec_volatile [(match_operand:SI 0 "const_int_operand" "")] - UNSPEC_STACK_CHECK)] + UNSPECV_SPLIT_STACK_RETURN)] "" { if (operands[0] == const0_rtx)