Hi,

On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 1:12 PM, Jason Garrett-Glaser <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 12:25 PM, Ronald S. Bultje <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 12:03 PM, Jason Garrett-Glaser <[email protected]> 
>> wrote:
>>> On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 10:14 AM, Ronald S. Bultje <[email protected]> 
>>> wrote:
>>>> On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 9:48 AM, Jason Garrett-Glaser <[email protected]> 
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, Mar 17, 2012 at 9:34 AM, Ronald S. Bultje <[email protected]> 
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>  libavcodec/x86/cabac.h |   17 ++++++++++-------
>>>>>>  1 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> diff --git a/libavcodec/x86/cabac.h b/libavcodec/x86/cabac.h
>>>>>> index 3c3652d..c4832c3 100644
>>>>>> --- a/libavcodec/x86/cabac.h
>>>>>> +++ b/libavcodec/x86/cabac.h
>>>>>> @@ -105,8 +105,8 @@ static av_always_inline int 
>>>>>> get_cabac_bypass_sign_x86(CABACContext *c, int val)
>>>>>>  {
>>>>>>     x86_reg tmp;
>>>>>>     __asm__ volatile(
>>>>>> -        "movl %4, %k1                           \n\t"
>>>>>> -        "movl %2, %%eax                         \n\t"
>>>>>> +        "movl %c5(%2), %k1                      \n\t"
>>>>>> +        "movl %c3(%2), %%eax                    \n\t"
>>>>>>         "shl $17, %k1                           \n\t"
>>>>>>         "add %%eax, %%eax                       \n\t"
>>>>>>         "sub %k1, %%eax                         \n\t"
>>>>>> @@ -117,7 +117,7 @@ static av_always_inline int 
>>>>>> get_cabac_bypass_sign_x86(CABACContext *c, int val)
>>>>>>         "sub %%edx, %%ecx                       \n\t"
>>>>>>         "test %%ax, %%ax                        \n\t"
>>>>>>         " jnz 1f                                \n\t"
>>>>>> -        "mov  %3, %1                            \n\t"
>>>>>> +        "mov  %c4(%2), %1                       \n\t"
>>>>>>         "subl $0xFFFF, %%eax                    \n\t"
>>>>>>         "movzwl (%1), %%edx                     \n\t"
>>>>>>         "bswap %%edx                            \n\t"
>>>>>> @@ -126,11 +126,14 @@ static av_always_inline int 
>>>>>> get_cabac_bypass_sign_x86(CABACContext *c, int val)
>>>>>>         "addl %%edx, %%eax                      \n\t"
>>>>>>         "mov  %1, %3                            \n\t"
>>>>>>         "1:                                     \n\t"
>>>>>> -        "movl %%eax, %2                         \n\t"
>>>>>> +        "movl %%eax, %c4(%2)                    \n\t"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -        :"+c"(val), "=&r"(tmp), "+m"(c->low), "+m"(c->bytestream)
>>>>>> -        :"m"(c->range)
>>>>>> -        : "%eax", "%edx"
>>>>>> +        : "+c"(val), "=&r"(tmp)
>>>>>> +        : "r"(c),
>>>>>> +          "i"(offsetof(CABACContext, low)),
>>>>>> +          "i"(offsetof(CABACContext, bytestream)),
>>>>>> +          "i"(offsetof(CABACContext, range))
>>>>>> +        : "%eax", "%edx", "memory"
>>>>>
>>>>> IMO clobbering memory looks very very hacky, and I don't like it.  If
>>>>> you need to clobber something, it'd be much better if we could clobber
>>>>> exactly what needs clobbering, and nothing more.
>>>>
>>>> Well, I don't think inline assembly supports explicitely clobbering
>>>> variables without marking them as "+m" or "+r", which messes up the
>>>> register allocator for at least gcc-4.2.1 (it uses a different
>>>> register for each "m"(c->...), thus running out of registers; yes,
>>>> there's many things wrong there).
>>>
>>> You can clobber a memory location without referencing it in the asm,
>>> and thus without allocating a register for it.
>>
>> That sounds useful, how do I do that?
>
> Just add +m arguments and don't use them, that's all.
>
> Here's an example from an unfinished patch of mine:
>
> +static ALWAYS_INLINE void x264_cabac_encode_decision( x264_cabac_t
> *cb, int i_ctx, int b )
> +{
> +    asm(
> +        "call %P8\n"
> +        :"+S"(i_ctx),"+d"(b), "+D"(cb->i_range), "+m"(cb->i_low),
> "+m"(cb->i_queue), "+m"(cb->i_bytes_outstanding), "+m"(cb->p)
> +        :"a"(cb),"X"(x264_cabac_encode_decision_asm)
> +        :"%ecx"
> +    );
> +}

That's how we got here in the first place. gcc-4.2.1 and clang-2.9
allocate a register for "+m"(struct->val) pairs, causing the compiler
to run out of registers. It simply won't compile, as silly as that
sounds.

Ronald
_______________________________________________
libav-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.libav.org/mailman/listinfo/libav-devel

Reply via email to