On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 8:54 AM, Uros Bizjak <ubiz...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 4:05 AM, H.J. Lu <hjl.to...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Sun, Jan 14, 2018 at 1:23 PM, H.J. Lu <hjl.to...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Sun, Jan 14, 2018 at 10:52 AM, Uros Bizjak <ubiz...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> On Sun, Jan 14, 2018 at 7:08 PM, H.J. Lu <hjl.to...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> On Sun, Jan 14, 2018 at 9:51 AM, Uros Bizjak <ubiz...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> - (ior (and (not (match_test "TARGET_X32")) >>>>>> + (ior (and (not (match_test "TARGET_X32 >>>>>> + || ix86_indirect_branch_thunk_register")) >>>>>> (match_operand 0 "sibcall_memory_operand")) >>>>>> - (and (match_test "TARGET_X32 && Pmode == DImode") >>>>>> + (and (match_test "TARGET_X32 && Pmode == DImode >>>>>> + && !ix86_indirect_branch_thunk_register") >>>>>> (match_operand 0 "GOT_memory_operand")))) >>>>>> >>>>>> Is this patch just trying to disable the predicate when >>>>>> ix86_indirect_branch_thunk_register is set? Because this is what this >>>>>> convoluted logic does. >>>>> >>>>> Yes, we want to disable all indirect branch via memory with >>>>> -mindirect-branch-register, just like -mx32. We could do >>>>> >>>>> #idefine TARGET_INDIRECT_BRANCH_REGISTER \ >>>>> (TARGER_X32 || ix86_indirect_branch_thunk_register) >>>> >>>> Index: predicates.md >>>> =================================================================== >>>> --- predicates.md (revision 256666) >>>> +++ predicates.md (working copy) >>>> @@ -710,11 +710,10 @@ >>>> (ior (match_test "constant_call_address_operand >>>> (op, mode == VOIDmode ? mode : Pmode)") >>>> (match_operand 0 "call_register_no_elim_operand") >>>> - (ior (and (not (match_test "TARGET_X32 >>>> - || >>>> ix86_indirect_branch_thunk_register")) >>>> + (and (not (match_test "ix86_indirect_branch_thunk_register")) >>>> + (ior (and (not (match_test "TARGET_X32"))) >>>> (match_operand 0 "memory_operand")) >>>> - (and (match_test "TARGET_X32 && Pmode == DImode >>>> - && !ix86_indirect_branch_thunk_register") >>>> + (and (match_test "TARGET_X32 && Pmode == DImode") >>>> (match_operand 0 "GOT_memory_operand"))))) >>>> >>>> or something like that. >>>> >>> >>> I am testing this patch. OK for trunk if there is no regression? >>> >> >> Here is the updated patch. Tested on i686 and x86-64. OK for >> trunk? > > There are two of the same issues in constraints.md > > On further inspection, there are several new > ix86_indirect_branch_thunk_register conditions sprinkled around > predicates.md. The one in indirect_branch_operand is understandable > (but should be written as: > > (ior (match_operand 0 "register_operand") > (and (not (match_test "ix86_indirect_thunk_register")) > (not (match_test "TARGET_X32")) > (match_operand 0 "memory_operand")))) > ) > > but the ones in GOT_memory_operand and GOT32_symbol_operand should > *not* be there, since these are simple pattern matches. Now we have > situation where e.g. call_got_x32 and sibcall_got_32 patterns never > match, and should be disabled with > ix86_indirect_branch_thunk_register. Please move > ix86_indirect_branch_thunk_register conditions out of these two > predicates.
I break them into 4 smaller patches: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-01/msg01361.html https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-01/msg01360.html https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-01/msg01362.html https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-01/msg01359.html -- H.J.
