* [musl] List-Unsubscribe
@ 2021-12-07 8:33 Quesada Gonzalez, Elena
0 siblings, 0 replies; only message in thread
From: Quesada Gonzalez, Elena @ 2021-12-07 8:33 UTC (permalink / raw)
De: David Edelsohn <email@example.com>
Enviado el: martes, 7 de diciembre de 2021 2:45
Para: Rich Felker <firstname.lastname@example.org>
CC: email@example.com; Florian Weimer <firstname.lastname@example.org>; Stijn Tintel <email@example.com>
Asunto: Re: [musl] [PATCH] ppc64: check for AltiVec in setjmp/longjmp
On Mon, Dec 6, 2021 at 8:39 PM Rich Felker <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 06, 2021 at 08:15:48PM -0500, David Edelsohn wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 6, 2021 at 7:59 PM Rich Felker <email@example.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, Dec 07, 2021 at 01:37:12AM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
> > > > * Stijn Tintel:
> > > >
> > > > > diff --git a/src/setjmp/powerpc64/setjmp.s
> > > > > b/src/setjmp/powerpc64/setjmp.s index 37683fda..32853693
> > > > > 100644
> > > > > --- a/src/setjmp/powerpc64/setjmp.s
> > > > > +++ b/src/setjmp/powerpc64/setjmp.s
> > > > > @@ -69,7 +69,17 @@ __setjmp_toc:
> > > > > stfd 30, 38*8(3)
> > > > > stfd 31, 39*8(3)
> > > > >
> > > > > - # 5) store vector registers v20-v31
> > > > > + # 5) store vector registers v20-v31 if hardware supports AltiVec
> > > > > + mflr 0
> > > > > + bl 1f
> > > > > + .hidden __hwcap
> > > > > + .long __hwcap-.
> > > > > +1: mflr 4
> > > >
> > > > This de-balances the return stack and probably has quite severe
> > > > performance impact. The ISA manual says to use
> > > >
> > > > bcl 20,31,$+4
> > > >
> > > > and you'll have to store the __hwcap offset somewhere else.
> > >
> > > To begin with, let's change the .s files to .S files and put the
> > > whole branch logic inside #ifndef __ALTIVEC__ so that it does not
> > > impact normal builds with an ISA level where Altivec can be
> > > assumed to be present.
> > >
> > > I'm not sufficiently familiar with the PowerPC ISA to know how bcl
> > > works, but if there's a less expensive solution along those lines
> > > that's compatible with all ISA levels, by all means let's use it.
> > > The same could be done for powerpc-sf (32-bit) and its SPE branches, too.
> > bl = branch and link
> > bcl = branch conditional and link
> > link means place the next instruction address in the link register.
> > Normally a branch and link would be used for a matching "return"
> > instruction, but in this case it is being used to compute a position
> > independent code address. As Florian correctly points out, the "bl"
> > will corrupt the link stack in the processor used to predict return
> > addresses and the recommended sequence is the one that he suggests.
> > bcl 20,31,addr
> > which means branch always and, because the condition register bits
> > are irrelevant, a special value that instructs the processor to not
> > push the address onto the link stack so that the "calls" and "returns"
> > remain matched.
> Thanks. Am I correct in understanding then that we don't need $+4, but
> can instead use the 1f just as now, with inline .long __hwcap-. -- in
> other words that "bcl 20,31," is a drop-in replacement for "bl"
> without the link stack impact?
It should work, but it's slightly preferred to use $+4 because one explicitly wants the address of the next instruction and labels of the form "1f" are not supported by all assemblers.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] only message in thread
only message in thread, other threads:[~2021-12-07 8:34 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: (only message) (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2021-12-07 8:33 [musl] List-Unsubscribe Quesada Gonzalez, Elena
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this inbox:
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).