[Bug target/39146] Unnecessary stack alignment
--- Comment #19 from hjl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-12 12:54 --- Subject: Bug 39146 Author: hjl Date: Fri Jun 12 12:54:30 2009 New Revision: 148428 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=148428 Log: gcc/ 2009-06-12 Joey Ye joey...@intel.com PR middle-end/39146 * cfgexpand.c (get_decl_align_unit): Update max_used_stack_slot_alignment with align instead of stack_alignment_needed. * function.c (assign_stack_local_1): Update max_used_stack_slot_alignment with alignment_in_bits instead of stack_alignment_needed. (locate_and_pad_parm): Don't update max_used_stack_slot_alignment here. gcc/testsuite/ 2009-06-12 Joey Ye joey...@intel.com H.J. Lu hongjiu...@intel.com PR middle-end/39146 * gcc.target/i386/stackalign/pr39146.c: New. Added: trunk/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/stackalign/pr39146.c Modified: trunk/gcc/ChangeLog trunk/gcc/cfgexpand.c trunk/gcc/function.c trunk/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39146
[Bug target/39146] Unnecessary stack alignment
--- Comment #20 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2009-06-13 00:10 --- Fixed. -- hjl dot tools at gmail dot com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution||FIXED http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39146
[Bug target/39146] Unnecessary stack alignment
--- Comment #18 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-04-16 18:33 --- Stop setting the target milestone unless it is a regression. -- pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|4.5.0 |--- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39146
[Bug target/39146] Unnecessary stack alignment
--- Comment #16 from hjl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-03-03 17:14 --- Subject: Bug 39146 Author: hjl Date: Tue Mar 3 17:14:04 2009 New Revision: 144577 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=144577 Log: 2009-03-03 Joey Ye joey...@intel.com H.J. Lu hongjiu...@intel.com PR middle-end/39146 * gcc.target/i386/stackalign/pr39146.c: New. Added: branches/stack/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/stackalign/pr39146.c Modified: branches/stack/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog.stackalign -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39146
[Bug target/39146] Unnecessary stack alignment
--- Comment #17 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2009-03-03 17:36 --- A patch is posted at http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2009-03/msg00159.html -- hjl dot tools at gmail dot com changed: What|Removed |Added URL||http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc- ||patches/2009- ||03/msg00159.html http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39146
[Bug target/39146] Unnecessary stack alignment
--- Comment #14 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2009-02-28 18:51 --- (In reply to comment #12) Created an attachment (id=17305) -- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=17305action=view) [edit] New patch attached Test finished. No regression with emx_avx_sim. Wait to checkin to 4.5 Joey, please submit it for review, targeting gcc 4.5. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39146
[Bug target/39146] Unnecessary stack alignment
--- Comment #15 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2009-02-28 21:43 --- (In reply to comment #14) (In reply to comment #12) Created an attachment (id=17305) -- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=17305action=view) [edit] New patch attached Test finished. No regression with emx_avx_sim. Wait to checkin to 4.5 Joey, please submit it for review, targeting gcc 4.5. Joey, please also include a testcase. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39146
[Bug target/39146] Unnecessary stack alignment
--- Comment #13 from hjl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-02-21 00:01 --- Subject: Bug 39146 Author: hjl Date: Sat Feb 21 00:00:49 2009 New Revision: 144338 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=144338 Log: 2009-02-20 Joey Ye joey...@intel.com PR middle-end/39146 * cfgexpand.c (get_decl_align_unit): Update max_used_stack_slot_alignment with align instead of stack_alignment_needed. * function.c (assign_stack_local_1): Update max_used_stack_slot_alignment with alignment_in_bits instead of stack_alignment_needed. (locate_and_pad_parm): Don't update max_used_stack_slot_alignment here. Modified: branches/stack/gcc/ChangeLog.stackalign branches/stack/gcc/cfgexpand.c branches/stack/gcc/function.c -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39146
[Bug target/39146] Unnecessary stack alignment
--- Comment #12 from Joey dot ye at intel dot com 2009-02-16 08:49 --- Created an attachment (id=17305) -- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=17305action=view) New patch attached Test finished. No regression with emx_avx_sim. Wait to checkin to 4.5 -- Joey dot ye at intel dot com changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #17283|0 |1 is obsolete|| http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39146
[Bug target/39146] Unnecessary stack alignment
--- Comment #10 from Joey dot ye at intel dot com 2009-02-12 15:20 ---
(In reply to comment #8)
We still have push and mov. I guess it may be the best we can do.
But please run full 32 and 64bit testsuite with your patch as well
as under emx-avx-sim.
full 32/64 bit test pass with no regression {-m32, -m32 -mstackrealign
-mpreferred-stack-boundary=4, -m64}. Haven't tested emx-avx-sim test yet.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39146
[Bug target/39146] Unnecessary stack alignment
--- Comment #11 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2009-02-12 15:42 --- I think we can consider it for 4.5. -- hjl dot tools at gmail dot com changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |4.5.0 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39146
[Bug target/39146] Unnecessary stack alignment
--- Comment #2 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2009-02-11 15:15 ---
This is caused by assign_parms in function.c:
/* Estimate stack alignment from parameter alignment. */
if (SUPPORTS_STACK_ALIGNMENT)
{
unsigned int align = FUNCTION_ARG_BOUNDARY (data.promoted_mode,
data.passed_type);
if (TYPE_ALIGN (data.nominal_type) align)
align = TYPE_ALIGN (data.passed_type);
if (crtl-stack_alignment_estimated align)
{
gcc_assert (!crtl-stack_realign_processed);
crtl-stack_alignment_estimated = align;
}
}
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39146
[Bug target/39146] Unnecessary stack alignment
--- Comment #4 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2009-02-11 23:59 --- The dynamic stack alignment may not be easy to optimize out. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39146
[Bug target/39146] Unnecessary stack alignment
--- Comment #5 from Joey dot ye at intel dot com 2009-02-12 01:45 --- Stack realign is finalized by stack_realign = (incoming_stack_boundary (current_function_is_leaf ? crtl-max_used_stack_slot_alignment : crtl-stack_alignment_needed)); since bar is leaf function, it checks max_used_stack_slot_alignment. According to it's definition, max_used_stack_slot_alignment is /* The largest alignment of slot allocated on the stack. */. Parameter x isn't allocated on local stack, so max_used_stack_slot_alignment shouldn't be set to 256 bits. In locate_and_pad_parm, if (crtl-max_used_stack_slot_alignment crtl-stack_alignment_needed) crtl-max_used_stack_slot_alignment = crtl-stack_alignment_needed; sets max_used_stack_slot_alignment to 256 bits, which seems shouldn't happen all the time. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39146
[Bug target/39146] Unnecessary stack alignment
--- Comment #6 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2009-02-12 01:58 --- locate_and_pad_parm in function.c has /* Remember if the outgoing parameter requires extra alignment on the calling function side. */ if (crtl-stack_alignment_needed boundary) crtl-stack_alignment_needed = boundary; if (crtl-max_used_stack_slot_alignment crtl-stack_alignment_needed) crtl-max_used_stack_slot_alignment = crtl-stack_alignment_needed; if (crtl-preferred_stack_boundary boundary) crtl-preferred_stack_boundary = boundary; -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39146
[Bug target/39146] Unnecessary stack alignment
--- Comment #7 from Joey dot ye at intel dot com 2009-02-12 02:26 --- Created an attachment (id=17283) -- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=17283action=view) A patch to fix this problem Impact to other test unknown. Test undergoing. HJ, can you also help to verify and test this patch? -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39146
[Bug target/39146] Unnecessary stack alignment
--- Comment #8 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2009-02-12 02:33 --- (In reply to comment #7) Created an attachment (id=17283) -- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=17283action=view) [edit] A patch to fix this problem Impact to other test unknown. Test undergoing. HJ, can you also help to verify and test this patch? With your patch, I got .globl bar .type bar, @function bar: pushq %rbp movq%rsp, %rbp leave ret We still have push and mov. I guess it may be the best we can do. But please run full 32 and 64bit testsuite with your patch as well as under emx-avx-sim. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39146
[Bug target/39146] Unnecessary stack alignment
--- Comment #9 from Joey dot ye at intel dot com 2009-02-12 02:40 --- (In reply to comment #8) We still have push and mov. I guess it may be the best we can do. I believe so too. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39146
[Bug target/39146] Unnecessary stack alignment
--- Comment #1 from Joey dot ye at intel dot com 2009-02-10 05:35 --- Argument need 32 bytes alignment, No way to guarantee the argument won't be spilled. That's why stack adjustment is there. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39146
