Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Fix _Unwind_Backtrace() for SEH #48

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: releases/gcc-8
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

krlmlr
Copy link

@krlmlr krlmlr commented Sep 6, 2020

Applies cleanly to GCC 8.3.0, perhaps also much earlier.

jwakely pushed a commit to jwakely/gcc that referenced this pull request Sep 21, 2020
This patch modifies the MVE scalar shift RTL patterns. The current patterns
have wrong constraints and predicates due to which the values returned from
MVE scalar shift instructions are overwritten in the code-gen.

example:
$ cat x.c
int32_t  foo(int64_t acc, int shift)
{
  return sqrshrl_sat48 (acc, shift);
}

Code-gen before applying this patch:
$ arm-none-eabi-gcc -march=armv8.1-m.main+mve -mfloat-abi=hard -O2 -S
$  cat x.s
foo:
   push    {r4, r5}
   sqrshrl r0, r1, gcc-mirror#48, r2   ----> (a)
   mov     r0, r4  ----> (b)
   pop     {r4, r5}
   bx      lr

Code-gen after applying this patch:
foo:
   sqrshrl r0, r1, gcc-mirror#48, r2
   bx      lr

In the current compiler the return value (r0) from sqrshrl (a) is getting
overwritten by the mov statement (b).
This patch fixes above issue.

2020-06-12  Srinath Parvathaneni  <srinath.parvathaneni@arm.com>

gcc/
	* config/arm/mve.md (mve_uqrshll_sat<supf>_di): Correct the predicate
	and constraint of all the operands.
	(mve_sqrshrl_sat<supf>_di): Likewise.
	(mve_uqrshl_si): Likewise.
	(mve_sqrshr_si): Likewise.
	(mve_uqshll_di): Likewise.
	(mve_urshrl_di): Likewise.
	(mve_uqshl_si): Likewise.
	(mve_urshr_si): Likewise.
	(mve_sqshl_si): Likewise.
	(mve_srshr_si): Likewise.
	(mve_srshrl_di): Likewise.
	(mve_sqshll_di): Likewise.
	* config/arm/predicates.md (arm_low_register_operand): Define.

gcc/testsuite/
	* gcc.target/arm/mve/intrinsics/mve_scalar_shifts1.c: New test.
	* gcc.target/arm/mve/intrinsics/mve_scalar_shifts2.c: Likewise.
	* gcc.target/arm/mve/intrinsics/mve_scalar_shifts3.c: Likewise.
	* gcc.target/arm/mve/intrinsics/mve_scalar_shifts4.c: Likewise.

(cherry picked from commit 6af5987)
dankm pushed a commit to dankm/gcc that referenced this pull request Nov 28, 2022
This patch modifies the MVE scalar shift RTL patterns. The current patterns
have wrong constraints and predicates due to which the values returned from
MVE scalar shift instructions are overwritten in the code-gen.

example:
$ cat x.c
int32_t  foo(int64_t acc, int shift)
{
  return sqrshrl_sat48 (acc, shift);
}

Code-gen before applying this patch:
$ arm-none-eabi-gcc -march=armv8.1-m.main+mve -mfloat-abi=hard -O2 -S
$  cat x.s
foo:
   push    {r4, r5}
   sqrshrl r0, r1, gcc-mirror#48, r2   ----> (a)
   mov     r0, r4  ----> (b)
   pop     {r4, r5}
   bx      lr

Code-gen after applying this patch:
foo:
   sqrshrl r0, r1, gcc-mirror#48, r2
   bx      lr

In the current compiler the return value (r0) from sqrshrl (a) is getting
overwritten by the mov statement (b).
This patch fixes above issue.

2020-06-12  Srinath Parvathaneni  <srinath.parvathaneni@arm.com>

gcc/
	* config/arm/mve.md (mve_uqrshll_sat<supf>_di): Correct the predicate
	and constraint of all the operands.
	(mve_sqrshrl_sat<supf>_di): Likewise.
	(mve_uqrshl_si): Likewise.
	(mve_sqrshr_si): Likewise.
	(mve_uqshll_di): Likewise.
	(mve_urshrl_di): Likewise.
	(mve_uqshl_si): Likewise.
	(mve_urshr_si): Likewise.
	(mve_sqshl_si): Likewise.
	(mve_srshr_si): Likewise.
	(mve_srshrl_di): Likewise.
	(mve_sqshll_di): Likewise.
	* config/arm/predicates.md (arm_low_register_operand): Define.

gcc/testsuite/
	* gcc.target/arm/mve/intrinsics/mve_scalar_shifts1.c: New test.
	* gcc.target/arm/mve/intrinsics/mve_scalar_shifts2.c: Likewise.
	* gcc.target/arm/mve/intrinsics/mve_scalar_shifts3.c: Likewise.
	* gcc.target/arm/mve/intrinsics/mve_scalar_shifts4.c: Likewise.
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant