[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH] MIPS: Add option to pass return address location to _mcount.

To: Richard Sandiford <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] MIPS: Add option to pass return address location to _mcount. Was: [PATCH -v4 4/9] tracing: add static function tracer support for MIPS
From: Wu Zhangjin <>
Date: Sat, 24 Oct 2009 23:53:52 +0800
Cc: David Daney <>, GCC Patches <>, Adam Nemet <>,,,, Thomas Gleixner <>, Ralf Baechle <>, Nicholas Mc Guire <>
Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:subject:from:reply-to:to:cc :in-reply-to:references:content-type:organization:date:message-id :mime-version:x-mailer:content-transfer-encoding; bh=+MszvUpZzA2kReXNYdbTajx5kHrJSyj1TglWFr/psfk=; b=dP4oaNRmkmZW2Zc5GaUq1A/RVrdPSyhKCntZN4I5QeMm8eHN0WjYKq7BYUm5wBjohD T46nH/8xtwVMh55z9ydAYAqQiCqkqacMqq8G42kFDdUlhyHfJrqy03jv0yBEXZ/OiW// FtSzo+rYwc/kJG5gV2GXF6vH1zDTYecBYUijY=
Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;; s=gamma; h=subject:from:reply-to:to:cc:in-reply-to:references:content-type :organization:date:message-id:mime-version:x-mailer :content-transfer-encoding; b=dtAaqaeuOF60FhFDJIarXRlmBQWE/HzYtSyupcHuSAYp19fvteujctTHv82IW23Y6Q AIySyOT5QceQBMVaphOq+jv25oN3C5alkl3Gk7RzfQCFLS3NqL7JbhD98QWL2qlL0j6e Wski5lqYhsnduxi91wxjdRcnU6DiWtvpl/E44=
In-reply-to: <87my3htau1.fsf@firetop.home>
Organization: DSLab, Lanzhou University, China
Original-recipient: rfc822;
References: <> <> <> <> <> <1256233679.23653.7.camel@falcon> <> <87y6n36plp.fsf@firetop.home> <> <87my3htau1.fsf@firetop.home>

On Sat, 2009-10-24 at 10:12 +0100, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> Thanks for the patch.
> > How about this patch, I think it does what you suggest.
> >
> > When we pass -pg -mmcount-raloc, the address of the return address 
> > relative to sp is passed in $12 to _mcount.  If the return address is 
> > not saved, $12 will be zero.  I think this will work as registers are 
> > never saved with an offset of zero.  $12 is a temporary register that is 
> > not part of the ABI.
> Hmm, well, the suggestion was to pass a pointer rather than an offset,
> but both you and Wu Zhangjin seem to prefer the offset.  Is there a
> reason for that?  I suggested a pointer because
>   (a) they're more C-like
>   (b) they're just as quick and easy to compute
>   (c) MIPS doesn't have indexed addresses (well, except for a few
>       special cases) so the callee is going to have to compute the
>       pointer at some stage anyway

Agree with you.

if not with -fno-omit-frame-pointer, we also need to calculate the frame
pointer, and then plus it with the offset. with pointer, we can get it
directly, but it may need a more instruction(lui..., addiu...) for
loading the pointer. of course, at last, the pointer will save more time
for us :-)

so, David, could you please use pointer instead? and then I will test it
asap(cloning the latest gcc currently). thanks!

> (It sounds from Wu Zhangjin's reply like he'd alread suggested the
> offset thing before I sent my message.  If so, sorry for not using
> that earlier message as context.)

It doesn't matter, Seems at that time, you were not added in the CC
list, but added by David Daney later.

> > +  if (TARGET_RALOC)
> > +    {
> > +      /* If TARGET_RALOC load $12 with the offset of the ra save
> > +    location.  */
> > +      if (mips_raloc_in_delay_slot_p())
> > +   emit_small_ra_offset = 1;
> > +      else
> > +   {
> > +     if (Pmode == DImode)
> > +       fprintf (file, "\tdli\t%s,%d\t\t# offset of ra\n", reg_names[12],
> > +                cfun->machine->frame.ra_fp_offset);
> > +     else
> > +       fprintf (file, "\tli\t%s,%d\t\t# offset of ra\n", reg_names[12],
> > +                cfun->machine->frame.ra_fp_offset);
> > +   }
> > +    }
> We shouldn't need to do the delay slot dance.  With either the pointer
> ((D)LA) or offset ((D)LI) approach, the macro won't use $at, so we can
> insert the new code immediately before the jump, leaving the assembler
> to fill the delay slot.  This is simpler and should mean that the delay
> slot gets filled more often in the multi-insn-macro cases.
> Looks good otherwise, but I'd be interested in other suggestions for
> the option name.  I kept misreading "raloc" as a typo for "reloc".

The same misreading to me, what about -mmcount-ra-loc? add one "-", or

BTW: Just made dynamic function tracer for MIPS support module tracing
with the help of -mlong-calls. after some more tests, I will send it as
-v5 revision later. hope the -v6 revision work with this new feature of
gcc from David Daney.

        Wu Zhangjin

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>