aboutsummaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/tccgen.c
Commit message (Collapse)AuthorAgeFilesLines
...
* fix sizeof(array + integer)Daniel Glöckner2009-11-131-0/+1
| | | | | Previously sizeof would return the size of the array although the expression is always a plain pointer of 4 (or 8) bytes.
* win32: handle __declspec(dllimport)grischka2009-11-131-2/+10
|
* x86-64: Fix stab debug information.Shinichiro Hamaji2009-08-241-2/+2
| | | | | We need 32bit relocations for code and 64bit for debug info. Introduce a new macro R_DATA_PTR to distinguish the two usages.
* tccgen: free inline functions correctlygrischka2009-08-241-1/+5
|
* win32: treat long double as doublegrischka2009-07-181-0/+6
|
* win64: fix pointer <-> unsigned long typecast issuesgrischka2009-07-181-4/+4
|
* pe32+ target: add in various #define'sgrischka2009-07-181-1/+1
|
* cleanup: stop abuse of sym->r for inline functionsgrischka2009-07-181-25/+20
|
* incompatible function ptr assignment: just warngrischka2009-06-171-3/+2
| | | | | void fn_1(int i) {} void (*fn_2)(char*) = fn_1;
* allow redefinition of func_old_type functionsgrischka2009-06-171-4/+7
| | | | | | | void *memcpy(void*, const void*, unsigned); This gave an error if memcpy() has been used before implicitely, e.g. for structure passing etc.
* trying to fix the bug of unclean FPU st(0)Soloist Deng2009-06-171-3/+4
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Date: Mon, 8 Jun 2009 19:06:56 +0800 From: Soloist Deng <soloist.deng-gmail-com> Subject: [Tinycc-devel] trying to fix the bug of unclean FPU st(0) Hi all: I am using tcc-0.9.25, and the FPU bug brought a big trouble to me. I read the source and tried to fix it. Below is my solution. There are two places where program(`o(0xd9dd)') will generates `fstp %st(1)': vpop() in tccgen.c:689 and save_reg() in tccgen.c:210. We should first change both of them to `o(0xd8dd) // fstp %st(0)'. But these changes are not enough. Let's check the following code. void foo() { double var = 2.7; var++; } Using the changed tcc will generate following machine code: .text:08000000 public foo .text:08000000 foo proc near .text:08000000 .text:08000000 var_18 = qword ptr -18h .text:08000000 var_10 = qword ptr -10h .text:08000000 var_8 = qword ptr -8 .text:08000000 .text:08000000 push ebp .text:08000001 mov ebp, esp .text:08000003 sub esp, 18h .text:08000009 nop .text:0800000A fld L_0 .text:08000010 fst [ebp+var_8] .text:08000013 fstp st(0) .text:08000015 fld [ebp+var_8] .text:08000018 fst [ebp+var_10] .text:0800001B fstp st(0) .text:0800001D fst [ebp+var_18] .text:08000020 fstp st(0) .text:08000022 fld L_1 .text:08000028 fadd [ebp+var_10] .text:0800002B fst [ebp+var_8] .text:0800002E fstp st(0) .text:08000030 leave .text:08000031 retn .text:08000031 foo endp .text:08000031 .text:08000031 _text ends -------------------------------------------------- .data:08000040 ; Segment type: Pure data .data:08000040 ; Segment permissions: Read/Write .data:08000040 ; Segment alignment '32byte' can not be represented in assembly .data:08000040 _data segment page public 'DATA' use32 .data:08000040 assume cs:_data .data:08000040 ;org 8000040h .data:08000040 L_0 dq 400599999999999Ah .data:08000048 L_1 dq 3FF0000000000000h .data:08000048 _data ends Please notice the code snippet from 0800000A to 08000020 // double var = 2.7; load constant to st(0) .text:0800000A fld L_0 // double var = 2.7; store st(0) to `var' .text:08000010 fst [ebp+var_8] // double var = 2.7; poping st(0) will empty the floating registers stack .text:08000013 fstp st(0) After that ,tcc will call `void inc(int post, int c)" in tccgen.c:2150, and produce 08000015 to 0800001B through the calling chain (inc ->gv_dup) // load from `var' to st(0) .text:08000015 fld [ebp+var_8] // store st(0) to a temporary location .text:08000018 fst [ebp+var_10] // poping st(0) will empty the floating registers stack .text:0800001B fstp st(0) And the calling chain (gen_op('+')->gen_opif('+')->gen_opf('+')->gv(rc=2)->get_reg(rc=2)->save_reg(r=3)) will produce 0800001D to 08000020 . // store st(0) to a temporary location, but floating stack is empty! .text:0800001D fst [ebp+var_18] // poping st(0) will empty the floating registers stack .text:08000020 fstp st(0) The `0800001D fst [ebp+var_18]' will store st(0) to a memory location, but st(0) is empty. That will cause FPU invalid operation exception(#IE). Why does tcc do that? Please read `gv_dup' called by `inc' carefully. Notice these lines: (1): r = gv(rc); (2): r1 = get_reg(rc); (3): sv.r = r; sv.c.ul = 0; (4) load(r1, &sv); /* move r to r1 */ (5) vdup(); /* duplicates value */ (6) vtop->r = r1; (1) let the vtop occupy TREG_ST0, and `r' will be TREG_ST0. (2) try to get a free floating register,but tcc assume there is only one, so it wil force vtop goto memory and assign `r1' with TREG_ST0. When executing (3), it will do nothing because `r' equals `r1'. (5) duplicates vtop. Then (6) let the new vtop occupy TREG_ST0, but this will cause problem because the old vtop has been moved to memory, so the new duplicated vtop does not reside in TREG_ST0 but also in memory after that. TREG_ST0 is not occupied but freely availabe now. `gen_op('+')' need at least one oprand in register, so it will incorrectly think TREG_ST0 is occupied by vtop and produce instructions(0800001D and 08000020) to store it to a temporary memory location. According program above, if `r' == `r1' it is impossible for the old vtop to still occupy the `r' register . And `load' will do nothing too at this condition. So the `gv_dup' can not promise the semantics that old vtop in one register and the new duplicated vtop in another register at the same time. I changed (6) to if (r != r1) { vtop->r = r1; } Then the new generated machine code will be : .text:08000000 push ebp .text:08000001 mov ebp, esp .text:08000003 sub esp, 10h .text:08000009 nop .text:0800000A fld L_0 .text:08000010 fst [ebp+var_8] .text:08000013 fstp st(0) .text:08000015 fld [ebp+var_8] .text:08000018 fst [ebp+var_10] .text:0800001B fstp st(0) .text:0800001D fld L_1 .text:08000023 fadd [ebp+var_10] .text:08000026 fst [ebp+var_8] .text:08000029 fstp st(0) .text:0800002B leave .text:0800002C retn It works well, and will clean the floating registers stack when return. Finally, I want to know there is any potential problem of this fixing ? soloist
* use static declaration from prototypegrischka2009-06-171-3/+8
| | | | | | | | static int func(); ... int func() { } As result, func needs to be static.
* unions: initzialize only one fieldgrischka2009-06-171-0/+18
| | | | | | | | | | | struct { union { int a,b; }; int c; } sss = { 1,2 }; This had previously assigned 1,2 to a,b and 0 to c which is wrong.
* pass constness from structs to membersSam Watkins2009-06-161-0/+3
|
* move some global variables into TCCStategrischka2009-05-111-10/+10
|
* move parser/generator to tccgen.cgrischka2009-05-051-0/+5102
|
* new files: tcc.h libtcc.c tccpp.c tccgen.cgrischka2009-05-051-0/+20