On 02/02/2011 00:29, Edward Z. Yang wrote:
More Hoopling later, I see this segment in the rewrite function:
middle m@(CmmUnsafeForeignCall _ fs _) live = return $
case map spill (filter (flip elemRegSet (on_stack live)) fs) ++
map reload (uniqSetToList (kill fs (in_regs live))) of
[] -> Nothing
reloads -> Just $ mkMiddles (m : reloads)
So, if I understand this code correctly, it unilaterally reloads
/anything/ in the registers according to the analysis at that point.
Well, I could see that resulting in the behavior below.
It's not so clear to me what the correct rewrite is; according to
Marlow's comment on IRC, we ought not to be spilling/reloading foreign
calls yet, so maybe the whole bit should get excised? Otherwise, it seems
to me that transfer function needs to accomodate unsafe foreign
functions.
Right, there's no need to spill/reload anything around an *unsafe*
foreign call in the Cmm code generator. The NCG's register allocator
will do any necessary spilling/reloading around foreign calls.
Cheers,
Simon
Cheers,
Edward
Excerpts from Simon Marlow's message of Tue Feb 01 03:44:41 -0500 2011:
On 01/02/2011 00:01, Edward Z. Yang wrote:
Current theory:
c1jj:
_s1ep::I32 = I32[(slot<_s1ep::I32> + 4)]; // CmmAssign
_s1fP::I32 = I32[(slot<_s1fP::I32> + 4)]; // CmmAssign
// outOfLine should follow:
_s1eq::F64 = F64[_s1fP::I32 + 3]; // CmmAssign
I32[(young<c1jh> + 4)] = c1jh; // CmmStore
foreign call "ccall" arg hints: [PtrHint,] result hints: []
call_fn_blob(...) returns to c1jh args: ([_s1ep::I32,
_s1eq::F64]) ress: ([_s1ev::F64]) with update
frame 4; // CmmForeignCall
c1jh:
_s1ev::F64 = F64[(slot<_s1ev::F64> + 8)]; // CmmAssign
// emitReturn: Sequel: Assign
_s1ev::F64 = _s1ev::F64; // CmmAssign
F64[(slot<_s1ev::F64> + 8)] = _s1ev::F64; // CmmStore
goto u1Ak; // CmmBranch
Note the line immediately after c1jh, where we reload the ostensibly
spilled _s1ev back into a register. Except that it was never spilled
there in the first place, and we just clobbered the real value. Oops.
Is this interpretation correct?
It sounds plausible, but I really have no idea. The code generator does
not have to generate spill/reloads around foreign calls, the register
allocator will do that.
Cheers,
Simon
_______________________________________________
Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list
Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
