public inbox for openrisc@lists.librecores.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Segher Boessenkool <segher@kernel.crashing.org>
To: openrisc@lists.librecores.org
Subject: [OpenRISC] [PATCH v3 3/3] or1k: gcc: initial support for openrisc
Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2018 17:54:47 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20181028225447.GK5766@gate.crashing.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20181028214723.GD1761@lianli.shorne-pla.net>

Hi!

On Mon, Oct 29, 2018 at 06:47:23AM +0900, Stafford Horne wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 27, 2018 at 09:57:30PM -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> > > +/* Helper for defining INITIAL_ELIMINATION_OFFSET.
> > > +   We allow the following eliminiations:
> > > +     FP -> HARD_FP or SP
> > > +     AP -> HARD_FP or SP
> > > +
> > > +   HFP and AP are the same which is handled below.  */
> > > +
> > > +HOST_WIDE_INT
> > > +or1k_initial_elimination_offset (int from, int to)
> > 
> > You could calculate this as  some_offset (from) - some_offset (to)  with
> > some_offset a simple helper function.  That gives you all possible
> > eliminations :-)
> > 
> > (Each offset is very cheap to compute in your case, so that's not a problem).
> 
> Right, Do you mean something like the following?  I think it would work, but I
> am not sure it make the code easier to read.  Do you think there would be much
> benefits supporting all possible eliminations?

Yes, like that.  It also easily can handle the other combos (those with
STACK_POINTER), and it is easier if you have to switch FRAME_GROWS_DOWNWARD
("false" is better on some args, but "true" is required for ssp).

Your code is fine as-is of course.

> > > +#undef TARGET_RTX_COSTS
> > > +#define TARGET_RTX_COSTS or1k_rtx_costs
> > 
> > You may want TARGET_INSN_COST as well (it is easier to get (more) correct).
> 
> OK, I was not considering that for the first port.  Perhaps after getting this
> in?  I think in general the OpenRISC insruction costs are fairly flat for the
> ones are using.

Oh, this was just a suggestion for the future :-)

If you compile with -dp you will see the cost and length for every insn
annotated; are most/all correct?

> > > +   This ABI has no adjacent call-saved register, which means that
> > > +   DImode/DFmode pseudos cannot be call-saved and will always be
> > > +   spilled across calls.  To solve this without changing the ABI,
> > > +   remap the compiler internal register numbers to place the even
> > > +   call-saved registers r16-r30 in 24-31, and the odd call-clobbered
> > > +   registers r17-r31 in 16-23.  */
> > 
> > Ooh evilness :-)
> 
> Richard did this, I thought it was rather clever. :)

Yes!

> > > +#define FUNCTION_ARG_REGNO_P(r) (r >= 3 && r <= 8)
> > 
> > IN_RANGE ?
> 
> OK, I may change it, I think without the macro, its easy to understand that its
> (inclusive).

Yeah, you'll have to remember that IN_RANGE always is inclusive too.  Maybe
if it were used more that woul become second nature to more people :-)


Segher

  reply	other threads:[~2018-10-28 22:54 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 35+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2018-10-27  4:36 [OpenRISC] [PATCH v3 0/3] OpenRISC port Stafford Horne
2018-10-27  4:37 ` [OpenRISC] [PATCH v3 1/3] or1k: libgcc: initial support for openrisc Stafford Horne
2018-10-27 23:25   ` Segher Boessenkool
2018-10-28  0:37     ` Stafford Horne
2018-10-28  1:25   ` Richard Henderson
2018-10-29 13:44     ` Stafford Horne
2018-10-27  4:37 ` [OpenRISC] [PATCH v3 2/3] or1k: testsuite: " Stafford Horne
2018-10-28  1:27   ` Richard Henderson
2018-10-27  4:37 ` [OpenRISC] [PATCH v3 3/3] or1k: gcc: " Stafford Horne
2018-10-28  1:56   ` Richard Henderson
2018-10-30 12:18     ` Stafford Horne
2018-10-30 15:57       ` Richard Henderson
2018-10-30 22:44         ` Stafford Horne
2018-10-28  2:57   ` Segher Boessenkool
2018-10-28 21:47     ` Stafford Horne
2018-10-28 22:54       ` Segher Boessenkool [this message]
2018-10-30 12:49         ` Stafford Horne
2018-10-30 15:49           ` Segher Boessenkool
2018-10-30 22:35             ` Stafford Horne
2018-10-31 14:39               ` Jeff Law
2018-10-28 23:16     ` Richard Henderson
2018-10-29 13:34       ` Stafford Horne
2018-10-29 16:34         ` Segher Boessenkool
2018-10-29 16:42           ` Richard Henderson
2018-10-30 11:26             ` Stafford Horne
2018-10-30 15:41               ` Segher Boessenkool
2018-10-29 14:28   ` Szabolcs Nagy
2018-11-04  9:05     ` Stafford Horne
2018-11-05 11:13       ` Szabolcs Nagy
2018-11-05 15:10         ` Rich Felker
2018-11-05 20:58           ` Stafford Horne
2018-11-05 20:52         ` Stafford Horne
2018-11-05 19:45       ` Richard Henderson
2018-11-05 20:14         ` Christophe Lyon
2018-10-28  1:29 ` [OpenRISC] [PATCH v3 0/3] OpenRISC port Richard Henderson

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20181028225447.GK5766@gate.crashing.org \
    --to=segher@kernel.crashing.org \
    --cc=openrisc@lists.librecores.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox