[PATCH 1/2] opcodes: LoongArch: make all non-native jumps desugar to canonical b{lt/ge}[u] forms

liuzhensong liuzhensong@loongson.cn
Fri Jul 29 10:02:00 GMT 2022


在 2022/7/29 下午5:42, WANG Xuerui 写道:
> On 2022/7/29 09:18, liuzhensong wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 2022/7/27 下午7:07, WANG Xuerui wrote:
>>> From: WANG Xuerui<git@xen0n.name>
>>>
>>> Also re-order the jump/branch opcodes while at it, so that insns are
>>> sorted in ascending order according to opcodes, and the label form
>>> preceding the real definition.
>>> ---
>>>   opcodes/loongarch-opc.c | 31 ++++++++++++-------------------
>>>   1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/opcodes/loongarch-opc.c b/opcodes/loongarch-opc.c
>>> index 08ba101a902..6f5e42d57e5 100644
>>> --- a/opcodes/loongarch-opc.c
>>> +++ b/opcodes/loongarch-opc.c
>>> @@ -810,22 +810,13 @@ static struct loongarch_opcode 
>>> loongarch_float_jmp_opcodes[] =
>>>   static struct loongarch_opcode loongarch_jmp_opcodes[] =
>>>   {
>>>     /* match,    mask,        name, format,                
>>> macro,            include, exclude, pinfo.  */
>>> -  { 0x0,    0x0,        "bltz",        "r,la", "bltz 
>>> %1,%%b16(%2)",        0, 0, 0 },
>>> -  { 0x60000000, 0xfc00001f,    "bltz", "r5:5,sb10:16<<2",        
>>> 0,                0, 0, 0 },
>>> -  { 0x0,    0x0,        "bgtz",        "r,la", "bgtz 
>>> %1,%%b16(%2)",        0, 0, 0 },
>>> -  { 0x60000000, 0xfc0003e0,    "bgtz", "r0:5,sb10:16<<2",        
>>> 0,                0, 0, 0 },
>>> -  { 0x0,    0x0,        "bgez",        "r,la", "bgez 
>>> %1,%%b16(%2)",        0, 0, 0 },
>>> -  { 0x64000000, 0xfc00001f,    "bgez", "r5:5,sb10:16<<2",        
>>> 0,                0, 0, 0 },
>>> -  { 0x0,    0x0,        "blez",        "r,la", "blez 
>>> %1,%%b16(%2)",        0, 0, 0 },
>>> -  { 0x64000000, 0xfc0003e0,    "blez", "r0:5,sb10:16<<2",        
>>> 0,                0, 0, 0 },
>>>     { 0x0,    0x0,        "beqz", "r,la",                "beqz 
>>> %1,%%b21(%2)",        0, 0, 0 },
>>>     { 0x40000000, 0xfc000000,    "beqz", 
>>> "r5:5,sb0:5|10:16<<2",        0,                0, 0, 0 },
>>>     { 0x0,    0x0,        "bnez", "r,la",                "bnez 
>>> %1,%%b21(%2)",        0, 0, 0 },
>>>     { 0x44000000, 0xfc000000,    "bnez", 
>>> "r5:5,sb0:5|10:16<<2",        0,                0, 0, 0 },
>>> -  { 0x0,    0x0,        "jr",        "r", "jirl $r0,%1,0",        
>>> 0, 0, 0 },
>>> -  { 0x50000000, 0xfc000000,    "b", "sb0:10|10:16<<2",        
>>> 0,                0, 0, 0 },
>>> -  { 0x0,    0x0,        "b",        "la",                "b 
>>> %%b26(%1)",            0, 0, 0 },
>>>     { 0x4c000000, 0xfc000000,    "jirl", 
>>> "r0:5,r5:5,s10:16<<2",        0,                0, 0, 0 },
>>> +  { 0x0,    0x0,        "b",        "la",                "b 
>>> %%b26(%1)",            0, 0, 0 },
>>> +  { 0x50000000, 0xfc000000,    "b", "sb0:10|10:16<<2",        
>>> 0,                0, 0, 0 },
>>>     { 0x0,    0x0,        "bl",        "la", "bl 
>>> %%b26(%1)",            0, 0, 0 },
>>>     { 0x54000000, 0xfc000000,    "bl", "sb0:10|10:16<<2",        
>>> 0,                0, 0, 0 },
>>>     { 0x0,    0x0,        "beq",        "r,r,la", "beq 
>>> %1,%2,%%b16(%3)",        0, 0, 0 },
>>> @@ -834,20 +825,22 @@ static struct loongarch_opcode 
>>> loongarch_jmp_opcodes[] =
>>>     { 0x5c000000, 0xfc000000,    "bne", 
>>> "r5:5,r0:5,sb10:16<<2",        0,                0, 0, 0 },
>>>     { 0x0,    0x0,        "blt",        "r,r,la", "blt 
>>> %1,%2,%%b16(%3)",        0, 0, 0 },
>>>     { 0x60000000, 0xfc000000,    "blt", 
>>> "r5:5,r0:5,sb10:16<<2",        0,                0, 0, 0 },
>>> -  { 0x0,    0x0,        "bgt",        "r,r,la", "bgt 
>>> %1,%2,%%b16(%3)",        0, 0, 0 },
>>> -  { 0x60000000, 0xfc000000,    "bgt", 
>>> "r0:5,r5:5,sb10:16<<2",        0,                0, 0, 0 },
>>>     { 0x0,    0x0,        "bge",        "r,r,la", "bge 
>>> %1,%2,%%b16(%3)",        0, 0, 0 },
>>>     { 0x64000000, 0xfc000000,    "bge", 
>>> "r5:5,r0:5,sb10:16<<2",        0,                0, 0, 0 },
>>> -  { 0x0,    0x0,        "ble",        "r,r,la", "ble 
>>> %1,%2,%%b16(%3)",        0, 0, 0 },
>>> -  { 0x64000000, 0xfc000000,    "ble", 
>>> "r0:5,r5:5,sb10:16<<2",        0,                0, 0, 0 },
>>>     { 0x0,    0x0,        "bltu",        "r,r,la", "bltu 
>>> %1,%2,%%b16(%3)",        0, 0, 0 },
>>>     { 0x68000000, 0xfc000000,    "bltu", 
>>> "r5:5,r0:5,sb10:16<<2",        0,                0, 0, 0 },
>>> -  { 0x0,    0x0,        "bgtu",        "r,r,la", "bgtu 
>>> %1,%2,%%b16(%3)",        0, 0, 0 },
>>> -  { 0x68000000, 0xfc000000,    "bgtu", 
>>> "r0:5,r5:5,sb10:16<<2",        0,                0, 0, 0 },
>>>     { 0x0,    0x0,        "bgeu",        "r,r,la", "bgeu 
>>> %1,%2,%%b16(%3)",        0, 0, 0 },
>>>     { 0x6c000000, 0xfc000000,    "bgeu", 
>>> "r5:5,r0:5,sb10:16<<2",        0,                0, 0, 0 },
>>> -  { 0x0,    0x0,        "bleu",        "r,r,la", "bleu 
>>> %1,%2,%%b16(%3)",        0, 0, 0 },
>>> -  { 0x6c000000, 0xfc000000,    "bleu", 
>>> "r0:5,r5:5,sb10:16<<2",        0,                0, 0, 0 },
>>> +  /* Jumps implemented with macros.  */
>>> +  { 0x0,    0x0,        "bgt",        "r,r,la", "blt 
>>> %2,%1,%%b16(%3)",        0, 0, 0 },
>>> +  { 0x0,    0x0,        "ble",        "r,r,la", "bge 
>>> %2,%1,%%b16(%3)",        0, 0, 0 },
>>> +  { 0x0,    0x0,        "bltz",        "r,la", "blt 
>>> %1,$r0,%%b16(%2)",        0, 0, 0 },
>>> +  { 0x0,    0x0,        "bgtz",        "r,la", "blt 
>>> $r0,%1,%%b16(%2)",        0, 0, 0 },
>>> +  { 0x0,    0x0,        "bgez",        "r,la", "bge 
>>> %1,$r0,%%b16(%2)",        0, 0, 0 },
>>> +  { 0x0,    0x0,        "blez",        "r,la", "bge 
>>> $r0,%1,%%b16(%2)",        0, 0, 0 },
>>> +  { 0x0,    0x0,        "bgtu",        "r,r,la", "bltu 
>>> %2,%1,%%b16(%3)",        0, 0, 0 },
>>> +  { 0x0,    0x0,        "bleu",        "r,r,la", "bgeu 
>>> %2,%1,%%b16(%3)",        0, 0, 0 },
>>> +  { 0x0,    0x0,        "jr",        "r", "jirl $r0,%1,0",        
>>> 0, 0, 0 },
>>>     { 0 } /* Terminate the list.  */
>>>   };
>> Looks good to me.  And I don't think the instruction "ret" is 
>> necessary in [PATCH 2/2].
>
> Please don't be so subjective. You and Chenghua never gave objective 
> reasons against "ret", your rejections seem to be just based on some 
> kind of personal preference. All while ignoring the objective 
> readability improvement and ease of learning gained by adding such 
> support, and I believe there must be community members in favor of the 
> addition.
>
> And it's not like everyone must immediately migrate to it, people may 
> well continue to write "jr ra" or even "jirl zero, ra, 0", only those 
> of us preferring brevity would have one more palatable choice...
If gcc is not required to be generated instruction "ret" by default, I 
think it can be added.



More information about the Binutils mailing list