Matthew Fortune <Matthew.Fortune@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>> On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 10:50:27AM -0800, David Daney wrote:
>>
>> > On 12/18/2014 07:09 AM, Markos Chandras wrote:
>> > >MIPS R6 changed the opcodes for LL/SC instructions and reduced the
>> > >offset field to 9-bits. This has some undesired effects with the "m"
>> > >constrain since it implies a 16-bit immediate. As a result of which,
>> > >add a register ("r") constrain as well to make sure the entire
>> > >address is loaded to a register before the LL/SC operations. Also use
>> > >macro to set the appropriate ISA for the asm blocks
>> > >
>> >
>> > Has support for MIPS R6 been added to GCC?
>> >
>> > If so, that should include a proper constraint to be used with the new
>> > offset restrictions. We should probably use that, instead of forcing
>> > to a "r" constraint.
>>
>> In a non-public earlier discussion I've requested the same but somehow
>> that was ignored.
>
> I must have missed that comment or not been on the thread.
>
>> We need suitable constraints or the alternatives will be very, very
>> ugly.
>
> We can certainly discuss and investigate such things but there is a
> general problem of a growing list of different size displacement fields
> in load/store instructions.
IMO, there should at least be a constraint sufficient for the smallest
displacement supported by any instruction (in addition to the "r"
constraint which of course always works). If there is an instruction
limited to, say, 10 bits of displacement, it will work with a constraint
enforcing 9 bits, if not ideally, and it will almost always be better
than resorting to "r".
> Obviously you could just opt to keep things the way they are for uMIPS
> today and leave the assembler to expand the instruction but my opinion
> is that magic expanding assembler macros are infuriating. We have
> however had to put support in binutils for many of them, simply to
> keep enough software building to ease the transition.
I too find magic assemblers do more harm than good.
> So, all this patch does is highlight that magic assembler macros have
> been hiding this issue since micromips was added.
>
> From your experiences will people invest the effort to look at the
> size of a displacement field for all the memory operations in an inline
> asm block and then choose an appropriate memory constraint?
I can't speak for others, but when I use inline asm, I always try to
pick the best possible constraint.
> I'm obviously wary of putting things into GCC that are either only used
> in a handful of places (or not at all). The alternative to constraints
> is of course to try and reduce the need for inline asm and offer builtins
> for specific instructions or more complex operations.
If gcc is to implement the __atomic_* operations properly, it will need
suitable constraints for internal use. I see no reason not to document
these for others as well.
--
Måns Rullgård
mans@xxxxxxxxx
