diff mbox

PR45070: Fix wrong epilogue code for cortex-m0/Os

Message ID 003101cd8a43$05792600$106b7200$@cheng@arm.com
State New
Headers show

Commit Message

Bin Cheng Sept. 4, 2012, 2:14 a.m. UTC 
Hi,
I found below regression tests are failed on trunk for cortex-m0/Os:

FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/pr45070.c execution,  -Os
FAIL: gcc.dg/compat/struct-layout-1 c_compat_x_tst.o-c_compat_y_tst.o
execute
FAIL: gcc.dg/compat/struct-return-2 c_compat_x_tst.o-c_compat_y_tst.o
execute
FAIL: tmpdir-gcc.dg-struct-layout-1/t001 c_compat_x_tst.o-c_compat_y_tst.o
execute
WARNING: program timed out.
FAIL: tmpdir-gcc.dg-struct-layout-1/t002 c_compat_x_tst.o-c_compat_y_tst.o
execute
FAIL: tmpdir-gcc.dg-struct-layout-1/t024 c_compat_x_tst.o-c_compat_y_tst.o
execute
FAIL: tmpdir-gcc.dg-struct-layout-1/t025 c_compat_x_tst.o-c_compat_y_tst.o
execute
FAIL: tmpdir-gcc.dg-struct-layout-1/t027 c_compat_x_tst.o-c_compat_y_tst.o
execute
FAIL: tmpdir-gcc.dg-struct-layout-1/t028 c_compat_x_tst.o-c_compat_y_tst.o
execute

Seems the patch for pr45070 does not cover Thumb1 instruction set, here
comes this patch fixing the issue.

It is caused by wrong epilogue generated for cortex-m0/Os. In function
thumb1_extra_regs_pushed, gcc calculates reg_base as following, which does
not honor return value of size less than 4 bytes, resulting in wrong pop
sequences.
	reg_base = arm_size_return_regs () / UNITS_PER_WORD;

I ran regression test with/without Os for cortex-m0 and everything is ok.
Ok for trunk and 4.7/4.6 release branches?

Thanks.


2012-09-04  Bin Cheng  <bin.cheng@arm.com>

	PR target/45070
	* config/arm/arm.c (thumb1_extra_regs_pushed): Handle return value
of size
	less than 4 bytes by using macro ARM_NUM_INTS.
	(thumb1_unexpanded_epilogue): Use macro ARM_NUM_INTS.

Comments

Ramana Radhakrishnan Sept. 4, 2012, 8:03 a.m. UTC | #1 
>
> I ran regression test with/without Os for cortex-m0 and everything is ok.
> Ok for trunk and 4.7/4.6 release branches?

OK for trunk.

Ok to backport if no release manager objects in 24 hours and if it tests 
without regressions there.


Thanks,
Ramana
Bin Cheng Sept. 5, 2012, 11 a.m. UTC | #2 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ramana Radhakrishnan
> Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2012 4:03 PM
> To: Bin Cheng
> Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] PR45070: Fix wrong epilogue code for cortex-m0/Os
> 
> >
> > I ran regression test with/without Os for cortex-m0 and everything is
ok.
> > Ok for trunk and 4.7/4.6 release branches?
> 
> OK for trunk.

committed.

> 
> Ok to backport if no release manager objects in 24 hours and if it tests
> without regressions there.

no objections.
committed after regression test.

Thanks.
Bin Cheng Sept. 7, 2012, 10:57 a.m. UTC | #3 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org [mailto:gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org]
On
> Behalf Of Bin Cheng
> Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2012 7:01 PM
> To: Ramana Radhakrishnan
> Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: RE: [PATCH] PR45070: Fix wrong epilogue code for cortex-m0/Os
> 
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Ramana Radhakrishnan
> > Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2012 4:03 PM
> > To: Bin Cheng
> > Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
> > Subject: Re: [PATCH] PR45070: Fix wrong epilogue code for cortex-m0/Os
> >
> > >
> > > I ran regression test with/without Os for cortex-m0 and everything
> > > is
> ok.
> > > Ok for trunk and 4.7/4.6 release branches?
> >
> > OK for trunk.
> 
> committed.
> 
> >
> > Ok to backport if no release manager objects in 24 hours and if it
> > tests without regressions there.
> 
> no objections.
> committed after regression test.
> 

Back ported to arm/embedded-4_6-branch and arm/embedded-4_7-branch.

Thanks.
diff mbox

Patch

Index: gcc/config/arm/arm.c
===================================================================
--- gcc/config/arm/arm.c	(revision 190830)
+++ gcc/config/arm/arm.c	(working copy)
@@ -21862,7 +21862,7 @@  thumb1_extra_regs_pushed (arm_stack_offsets *offse
   unsigned long l_mask = live_regs_mask & (for_prologue ? 0x40ff : 0xff);
   /* Then count how many other high registers will need to be pushed.  */
   unsigned long high_regs_pushed = bit_count (live_regs_mask & 0x0f00);
-  int n_free, reg_base;
+  int n_free, reg_base, size;
 
   if (!for_prologue && frame_pointer_needed)
     amount = offsets->locals_base - offsets->saved_regs;
@@ -21901,7 +21901,8 @@  thumb1_extra_regs_pushed (arm_stack_offsets *offse
   n_free = 0;
   if (!for_prologue)
     {
-      reg_base = arm_size_return_regs () / UNITS_PER_WORD;
+      size = arm_size_return_regs ();
+      reg_base = ARM_NUM_INTS (size);
       live_regs_mask >>= reg_base;
     }
 
@@ -21955,8 +21956,7 @@  thumb1_unexpanded_epilogue (void)
   if (extra_pop > 0)
     {
       unsigned long extra_mask = (1 << extra_pop) - 1;
-      live_regs_mask |= extra_mask << ((size + UNITS_PER_WORD - 1) 
-				       / UNITS_PER_WORD);
+      live_regs_mask |= extra_mask << ARM_NUM_INTS (size);
     }
 
   /* The prolog may have pushed some high registers to use as