On 13 May 2014 20:56, Richard Earnshaw <rearn...@arm.com> wrote: > On 25/03/14 08:13, Zhenqiang Chen wrote: >> Hi >> >> The patch enables shrink-wrap for apcs frame. >> >> Bootstrap and no make check regression in ARM, THUMB1 and THUMB2 modes. >> No make check regression with "-g/-mapcs/-marm". >> Build linux-3.14-rc7 without error. >> >> Is it OK for next stage1? >> >> Thanks! >> -Zhenqiang >> >> ChangeLog: >> 2014-03-25 Zhenqiang Chen <zhenqiang.c...@linaro.org> >> >> * config/arm/arm.c (arm_option_override): Enable shrink-wrap for >> TARGET_APCS_FRAME. >> (arm_emit_multi_reg_pop): Set correct dwarf info. >> (arm_expand_epilogue_apcs_frame): Add more dwarf info. >> >> testsuite/ChangeLog: >> 2014-03-25 Zhenqiang Chen <zhenqiang.c...@linaro.org> >> >> * gcc.target/arm/shrink-wrap-alloca.c: New test case. >> * gcc.target/arm/shrink-wrap-sibcall.c: New test case. >> >> diff --git a/gcc/config/arm/arm.c b/gcc/config/arm/arm.c >> index 0240cc7..fa86942 100644 >> --- a/gcc/config/arm/arm.c >> +++ b/gcc/config/arm/arm.c >> @@ -2811,9 +2811,6 @@ arm_option_override (void) >> generate additional returns. */ >> if (optimize_function_for_size_p (cfun) && TARGET_THUMB2) >> flag_shrink_wrap = false; >> - /* TBD: Dwarf info for apcs frame is not handled yet. */ >> - if (TARGET_APCS_FRAME) >> - flag_shrink_wrap = false; >> >> /* We only support -mslow-flash-data on armv7-m targets. */ >> if (target_slow_flash_data >> @@ -19840,7 +19837,14 @@ arm_emit_multi_reg_pop (unsigned long >> saved_regs_mask) >> par = emit_insn (par); >> >> REG_NOTES (par) = dwarf; >> - if (!return_in_pc) >> + >> + if (!emit_update) >> + { >> + /* SP is restored from stack. So reset the frame info. */ >> + RTX_FRAME_RELATED_P (par) = 1; >> + add_reg_note (par, REG_CFA_DEF_CFA, stack_pointer_rtx); >> + } >> + else if (!return_in_pc) >> arm_add_cfa_adjust_cfa_note (par, UNITS_PER_WORD * num_regs, >> stack_pointer_rtx, stack_pointer_rtx); >> } >> @@ -27226,6 +27230,9 @@ arm_expand_epilogue_apcs_frame (bool really_return) >> REG_NOTES (insn) = alloc_reg_note (REG_CFA_RESTORE, >> gen_rtx_REG (SImode, IP_REGNUM), >> NULL_RTX); >> + arm_add_cfa_adjust_cfa_note (insn, UNITS_PER_WORD, >> + stack_pointer_rtx, >> + stack_pointer_rtx); > > This can't be related to $SUBJECT, surely? Shrink-wrapping an interrupt > routine?
>From middle-end view, shrink-wrapping does not distinguish an interrupt routine from general routines. But I am not quite sure there is dwarf info issue for interrupt route or not. I am running regression test. If it does not impact on the result, I will remove the code segment. Thanks! -Zhenqiang > If this is as I think, please resubmit that part as a separate patch. > > The other changes look ok. > > R. > >> } >> >> if (!really_return || (saved_regs_mask & (1 << PC_REGNUM))) >> diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/shrink-wrap-alloca.c >> b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/shrink-wrap-alloca.c >> new file mode 100644 >> index 0000000..318240b >> --- /dev/null >> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/shrink-wrap-alloca.c >> @@ -0,0 +1,11 @@ >> +/* { dg-do compile } */ >> +/* { dg-options "-O2 -g -mapcs " } */ >> + >> +int *p; >> + >> +void >> +test (int a) >> +{ >> + if (a > 0) >> + p = __builtin_alloca (4); >> +} >> diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/shrink-wrap-sibcall.c >> b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/shrink-wrap-sibcall.c >> new file mode 100644 >> index 0000000..2efe5d0 >> --- /dev/null >> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/shrink-wrap-sibcall.c >> @@ -0,0 +1,26 @@ >> +/* { dg-do compile } */ >> +/* { dg-options "-O2 -g -mapcs " } */ >> + >> +unsigned char a, b, d, f, g; >> + >> +int test (void); >> + >> +int >> +baz (int c) >> +{ >> + if (c == 0) return test (); >> + if (b & 1) >> + { >> + g = 0; >> + int e = (a & 0x0f) - (g & 0x0f); >> + >> + if (!a) b |= 0x80; >> + a = e + test (); >> + f = g/5 + a*3879 + b *2985; >> + } >> + else >> + { >> + f = g + a*39879 + b *25; >> + } >> + return test (); >> +} >> > >