Remove size limit of PCH

Remove the limit and solve https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14940.

I have tested the patch on `x86_64-w64-mingw32` with MSVCRT, by pre-compiling a header of many 
standard and boost headers to generate a 313-MiB-large .gch file and using it to compile a simple 
'hello world' program, and seen no problems so far.


After eighteen years this has eventually been settled. (sigh)

On Tue, 2022-05-10 at 19:35 +0800, LIU Hao via Gcc-patches wrote:

> Subject: [PATCH] Remove size limit of PCH

Make it "Remove size limit of PCH [PR14940]", so once it's committed a
message will show up in bugzilla.

> Reference: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14940
> Signed-off-by: LIU Hao <lh_mouse@126.com>

You'll need to add yourself into "Contributing under the DCO" section in
MAINTAINERS file first to use Signed-off-by, I guess.

A ChangeLog entry should be included in the commit message like

gcc/

	PR pch/14940
	* config/i386/host-mingw32.cc (pch_VA_max_size): Remove.
	(mingw32_gt_pch_get_address): ... ...

I know almost nothing about Windoge/MinGW so the technical review is
left for others.

在 2022-05-10 20:00, Xi Ruoyao 写道:
> On Tue, 2022-05-10 at 19:35 +0800, LIU Hao via Gcc-patches wrote:
> 
>> Subject: [PATCH] Remove size limit of PCH
> 
> Make it "Remove size limit of PCH [PR14940]", so once it's committed a
> message will show up in bugzilla.
> 

Here is the revised patch.

On Tue, May 10, 2022 at 09:30:03PM +0800, LIU Hao via Gcc-patches wrote:
> From 2e314baed84fd80b3b3c4c67787a032b86dd54dc Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: LIU Hao <lh_mouse@126.com>
> Date: Tue, 10 May 2022 13:19:07 +0800
> Subject: [PATCH] [PR14940] Remove size limit of PCH
> 
> There shouldn't be such a limit in practice.
> 
> 2022-05-03  LIU Hao <lh_mouse@126.com>
> 
> 	PR pch/14940
> 	* config/i386/host-mingw32.cc (pch_VA_max_size): Remove.
> 	(mingw32_gt_pch_get_address): Remove size limit.

This looks reasonable, but doesn't contain the most important part.
As mentioned in https://gcc.gnu.org/r12-5855
the generic part can now support relocation of PCH, so it is fine if it is
mapped at some other address, it is preferrable if it is mapped at the same
address as it was written for, but if not, the generic code can relocate it.

So, beyond your changes, I'd suggest to change:
  /* Retry five times, as here might occure a race with multiple gcc's
     instances at same time.  */
  for (r = 0; r < 5; r++)
   {
      mmap_addr = MapViewOfFileEx (mmap_handle, FILE_MAP_COPY, 0, offset,
                                   size, addr);
      if (mmap_addr == addr)
        break;
      if (r != 4)
        Sleep (500);
   }

  if (mmap_addr != addr)
    {
      w32_error (__FUNCTION__, __FILE__, __LINE__, "MapViewOfFileEx");
      CloseHandle(mmap_handle);
      return  -1;
    }

IMHO you can just drop the loop, sleep of half a second is almost certainly
slower than the relocation handling, so I'd just
  mmap_addr = MapViewOfFileEx (mmap_handle, FILE_MAP_COPY, 0, offset,
			       size, addr);
  if (mmap_addr == NULL)
    {
      w32_error (__FUNCTION__, __FILE__, __LINE__, "MapViewOfFileEx");
      CloseHandle(mmap_handle);
      return -1;
    }

  addr = mmap_addr;

This, if it mmaps the file at the right address, nice, if not, let the
caller know (through updating addr) that it needs to relocate it,
but if the mapping failed, fail.

	Jakub

On 5/10/22 13:30, LIU Hao wrote:
> 在 2022-05-10 20:00, Xi Ruoyao 写道:
>> On Tue, 2022-05-10 at 19:35 +0800, LIU Hao via Gcc-patches wrote:
>>
>>> Subject: [PATCH] Remove size limit of PCH
>>
>> Make it "Remove size limit of PCH [PR14940]", so once it's committed a
>> message will show up in bugzilla.
>>
> 
> Here is the revised patch.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

Thanks, I will commit soon if there are no objections.

在 2022-05-10 22:28, Jakub Jelinek 写道:
> 
> This looks reasonable, but doesn't contain the most important part.
> As mentioned in https://gcc.gnu.org/r12-5855
> the generic part can now support relocation of PCH, so it is fine if it is
> mapped at some other address, it is preferrable if it is mapped at the same
> address as it was written for, but if not, the generic code can relocate it.
> 
> (... ...)
> 
> IMHO you can just drop the loop, sleep of half a second is almost certainly
> slower than the relocation handling, so I'd just

Thanks for the hint. I have very little knowledge about how PCH works in GCC, thus I'm gonna propose 
a patch to MSYS2 and see how it works. This can be committed to GCC later, after having been tested 
through many packages.