This is the mail archive of the
binutils@sourceware.org
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: V4 [PATCH 2/4] i386: Align branches within a fixed boundary
On Thu, Dec 12, 2019 at 1:55 AM Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com> wrote:
>
> On 11.12.2019 17:58, H.J. Lu wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 11, 2019 at 12:05 AM Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> On 10.12.2019 17:21, H.J. Lu wrote:
> >>> @@ -8473,9 +8815,105 @@ output_insn (void)
> >>> if (j > 15)
> >>> as_warn (_("instruction length of %u bytes exceeds the limit of 15"),
> >>> j);
> >>> + else if (fragP)
> >>> + {
> >>> + /* NB: Don't add prefix with GOTPC relocation since
> >>> + output_disp() above depends on the fixed encoding
> >>> + length. Can't add prefix with TLS relocation since
> >>> + it breaks TLS linker optimization. */
> >>> + unsigned int max = i.has_gotpc_tls_reloc ? 0 : 15 - j;
> >>> + /* Prefix count on the current instruction. */
> >>> + unsigned int count = i.vex.length;
> >>> + unsigned int k;
> >>> + for (k = 0; k < ARRAY_SIZE (i.prefix); k++)
> >>> + /* REX byte is encoded in VEX/EVEX prefix. */
> >>> + if (i.prefix[k] && (k != REX_PREFIX || !i.vex.length))
> >>> + count++;
> >>> +
> >>> + /* Count prefixes for extended opcode maps. */
> >>> + if (!i.vex.length)
> >>> + switch (i.tm.opcode_length)
> >>> + {
> >>> + case 3:
> >>> + if (((i.tm.base_opcode >> 16) & 0xff) == 0xf)
> >>> + {
> >>> + count++;
> >>> + switch ((i.tm.base_opcode >> 8) & 0xff)
> >>> + {
> >>> + case 0x38:
> >>> + case 0x3a:
> >>> + count++;
> >>> + break;
> >>> + default:
> >>> + break;
> >>> + }
> >>> + }
> >>> + break;
> >>> + case 2:
> >>> + if (((i.tm.base_opcode >> 8) & 0xff) == 0xf)
> >>> + count++;
> >>> + break;
> >>> + case 1:
> >>> + break;
> >>> + default:
> >>> + abort ();
> >>> + }
> >>> +
> >>> + if (TYPE_FROM_RELAX_STATE (fragP->fr_subtype)
> >>> + == BRANCH_PREFIX)
> >>> + {
> >>> + /* Set the maximum prefix size in BRANCH_PREFIX
> >>> + frag. */
> >>> + if (fragP->tc_frag_data.max_bytes > max)
> >>> + fragP->tc_frag_data.max_bytes = max;
> >>> + if (fragP->tc_frag_data.max_bytes > count)
> >>> + fragP->tc_frag_data.max_bytes -= count;
> >>> + else
> >>> + fragP->tc_frag_data.max_bytes = 0;
> >>> + }
> >>> + else
> >>> + {
> >>> + /* Remember the maximum prefix size in FUSED_JCC_PADDING
> >>> + frag. */
> >>> + unsigned int max_prefix_size;
> >>> + if (align_branch_prefix_size > max)
> >>> + max_prefix_size = max;
> >>> + else
> >>> + max_prefix_size = align_branch_prefix_size;
> >>> + if (max_prefix_size > count)
> >>> + fragP->tc_frag_data.max_prefix_length
> >>> + = max_prefix_size - count;
> >>> + }
> >>> +
> >>> + /* Use existing segment prefix if possible. Use CS
> >>> + segment prefix in 64-bit mode. In 32-bit mode, use SS
> >>> + segment prefix with ESP/EBP base register and use DS
> >>> + segment prefix without ESP/EBP base register. */
> >>> + if (i.prefix[SEG_PREFIX])
> >>> + fragP->tc_frag_data.default_prefix = i.prefix[SEG_PREFIX];
> >>> + else if (flag_code == CODE_64BIT)
> >>> + fragP->tc_frag_data.default_prefix = CS_PREFIX_OPCODE;
> >>> + else if (i.base_reg
> >>> + && (i.base_reg->reg_num == 4
> >>> + || i.base_reg->reg_num == 5))
> >>> + fragP->tc_frag_data.default_prefix = SS_PREFIX_OPCODE;
> >>> + else
> >>> + fragP->tc_frag_data.default_prefix = DS_PREFIX_OPCODE;
> >>> + }
> >>
> >> Could you point me at where it is being excluded that any of
> >> these prefixes would get added to insns where they would have
> >> the meaning of a hint (taken / not taken or no-track)?
> >
> > taken / not taken or no-track prefixes are for branches. We never
> > add prefixes to branches.
>
> But this was my question - could you point me at the code making
> sure this won't happen? I in particular can't spot anything to this
> effect in add_branch_prefix_frag_p().
>
There are
if (branch)
/* Skip if this is a branch. */
;
else if (add_fused_jcc_padding_frag_p ())
...
else if (add_branch_prefix_frag_p ())
add_branch_prefix_frag_p is never called on branch nor fused jcc.
--
H.J.