Re: AW: Issue with subregs

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Hello Stefan, Segher,

- I still need to try Seghers suggestion. Let me first answer Stephan.
Take following piece of C-code:

int check_test(int a, int b, int c, int d)
{
_Bool check = (d == c) & (a > b) ;
if(check)
  {
  b = a ;
  }
return(b) ;
}

- What I want, is that the compiler does following:
  1. _Bool var1 = (d == c)
  2. _Bool var2 = (a > b)
  3. _Bool check = var1 & var2
  if(check) then conditional branch ...
- Now, the core has a condition code register,
  does 1. and 2. with a compare instruction, 3 with a crand.
  When I put the var1 and var2 in the condition register, this works !.
  Well, there are still some bugs, but this is what it does :

// The machine passes arguments in registers, a:R20, b: R21 and so on.
        comparison internal signed %cf9 %r23 %r22  // (it writes 3 flags. CF9 is less than, CF10 is greater, CF11 is equal         comparison internal signed %cf6 %r20 %r21  // writes CF6, CF7 and CF8
        crand %cf9 %cf7 %cf11
        novec_mybranch %cf9 1 .L2
        addi %r20, %r21, 0
.L2:
        ret
// return in register 20.

Now, Stephan, how do you intend to do the boolean and, if you put the
boolean variables in the SI (32-bit) register file of the machine ?. I mean,
then you need to move the content of the CC reg to an R-reg, AND it, and move
back from R-reg to CC-reg.  The other solution is 2 branches ?.

Best Regards,

Henri.




On 01/30/2020 11:57 AM, Stefan Franke wrote:

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: gcc-help-owner@xxxxxxxxxxx <gcc-help-owner@xxxxxxxxxxx> Im
Auftrag von Segher Boessenkool
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 30. Januar 2020 11:48
An: Henri Cloetens <henri.cloetens@xxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: gcc-help@xxxxxxxxxxx
Betreff: Re: Issue with subregs

Hi!

On Thu, Jan 30, 2020 at 11:19:18AM +0100, Henri Cloetens wrote:
- It is indeed true subreg only works on bytes.
- So, I changed the declaration:
   a. I declared all 12 condition code bits as BYTES (QI)
That's not going to work.  The separate 3-bit fields are still at offsets
0, 3, 6, 9
bit.  You cannot use subregs to access them.

   b. I split it in 4 CC fields (cfr below), and declared each of these
as SI.
Why not as CCmode?  That's what they are, after all.

- Then, the compare addresses the CC field in SI mode, the branch in
QI
   mode, and all goes well. I mean, it does not matter if I declare SI
or BI, because
   the compare instruction only writes 0 or 1, and the branch
instruction tests only
   for 0 or 1.
Or do the compare insns only set single bits?  Not (e.g.) all of "less
than",
"equal to", "greater than" at once?


Segher

My approach was: group all bits which may change simultaneously into one CC
reg each

This may result into one or more CC regs .
	I got two of these


Create at least a mode for each CC reg for each used combination
	I got two modes for the first CC reg: one to reflect eq/ne and one
mode for all other
	And one mode for the second CC reg, which covers all conditions

Then I coded the cbranch/cstore expands accordingly

A CC reg is either used in a branch or sets  the boolean value 0/1 in a
DI/SI/HI/QI register.

You'll may do more work later, if you want to support insn resulting by the
combine pass, e.g. testing single bits...

cheers

Stefan






[Index of Archives]     [Linux C Programming]     [Linux Kernel]     [eCos]     [Fedora Development]     [Fedora Announce]     [Autoconf]     [The DWARVES Debugging Tools]     [Yosemite Campsites]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux GCC]

  Powered by Linux