dnsampaio marked 4 inline comments as done.
dnsampaio added a comment.
Hi @jfb. In a example such as:
struct { int a : 1; int b : 16; } S;
extern int expensive_computaion(int v);
void foo(volatile S* s){
s->b = expensive_computation(s->b);
}
There is no guarantee that `s->a` is not modified during a expensive
computation, so it must be obtained just before writing the `s->b` value, as
`a` and `b` share the same memory position. This is already done by llvm.
Indeed, the exact output would be
define void @foo(%struct.S* %S) local_unnamed_addr #0 {
entry:
%0 = bitcast %struct.S* %S to i32*
%bf.load = load volatile i32, i32* %0, align 4
%bf.shl = shl i32 %bf.load, 15
%bf.ashr = ashr i32 %bf.shl, 16
%call = tail call i32 @expensive_computation(i32 %bf.ashr) #2
%bf.load1 = load volatile i32, i32* %0, align 4 ; <<<== Here it obtains the
value to s->a to restore it.
%bf.value = shl i32 %call, 1
%bf.shl2 = and i32 %bf.value, 131070
%bf.clear = and i32 %bf.load1, -131071
%bf.set = or i32 %bf.clear, %bf.shl2
store volatile i32 %bf.set, i32* %0, align 4
ret void
}
These extra loads here are required to make uniform the number of times the
volatile bitfield is read, independent if they share or not memory with other
data.
We could have it under a flag, such as `-faacps-volatilebitfield`, disabled by
default.
The other point not conformant to the AACPS is the width of the loads/stores
used to obtain bitfields. They should be the width of the container, if it does
that would not overlap with non-bitfields. Do you have any idea where that
could be computed? I imagine that would be when computing the alignment of the
elements of the structure, where I can check if the performing the entire
container width load would overlap with other elements. Could you point me
where that is done?
================
Comment at: clang/test/CodeGen/aapcs-bitfield.c:541
// BE-NEXT: [[TMP0:%.*]] = getelementptr inbounds [[STRUCT_ST9:%.*]],
%struct.st9* [[M:%.*]], i32 0, i32 0
+// BE-NEXT: [[BF_LOAD:%.*]] = load volatile i8, i8* [[TMP0]], align 4
// BE-NEXT: store volatile i8 1, i8* [[TMP0]], align 4
----------------
jfb wrote:
> These are just extra loads? Why?
Yes, these are just extra loads. As the AACPS describes, every write requires
to perform a load as well, even if all bits of the volatile bitfield is going
to be replaced.
================
Comment at: clang/test/CodeGen/aapcs-bitfield.c:552
// LE-NEXT: [[TMP0:%.*]] = getelementptr inbounds [[STRUCT_ST9:%.*]],
%struct.st9* [[M:%.*]], i32 0, i32 0
// LE-NEXT: [[BF_LOAD:%.*]] = load volatile i8, i8* [[TMP0]], align 4
// LE-NEXT: [[INC:%.*]] = add i8 [[BF_LOAD]], 1
----------------
jfb wrote:
> Why isn't this load sufficient?
Technically speaking, that is the load for reading the bitfield, not the load
required when writing it.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D67399/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D67399
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
