uweigand opened PR #4702 from s390x-align-fixes
to main
:
This fixes two problems: minimum symbol alignment for the LARL
instruction, and alignment requirements for LRL/LGRL etc.The first problem is that the LARL instruction used to load a
symbol address (PC relative) requires that the target symbol
is at least 2-byte aligned. This is always guaranteed for code
symbols (all instructions must be 2-aligned anyway), but not
necessarily for data symbols.Other s390x compilers fix this problem by ensuring that all
global symbols are always emitted with a minimum 2-byte
alignment. This patch introduces an equivalent mechanism
for cranelift:
Add a symbol_alignment routine to TargetIsa, similar to the
existing code_section_alignment routine.Respect symbol_alignment as minimum alignment for all symbols
emitted in the object backend (code and data).The second problem is that PC-relative instructions that
directly access data (like LRL/LGRL, STRL/STGRL etc.)
not only have the 2-byte requirement like LARL, but actually
require that their memory operand is naturally aligned
(i.e. alignment is at least the size of the access).This property (natural alignment for memory accesses) is
supposed to be provided by the "aligned" flag in MemFlags;
however, this is not implemented correctly at the moment.To fix this, this patch:
Only emits PC-relative memory access instructions if the
"aligned" flag is set in the associated MemFlags.Fixes a bug in emit_small_memory_copy and emit_small_memset
which currently set the aligned flag unconditionally, ignoring
the actual alignment info passed by their caller.Tested with wasmtime and cg_clif.
FYI @cfallin @bjorn3 - this is the last missing cranelift patch to make cg_clif work on s390x.
<!--
Please ensure that the following steps are all taken care of before submitting
the PR.
[ ] This has been discussed in issue #..., or if not, please tell us why
here.[ ] A short description of what this does, why it is needed; if the
description becomes long, the matter should probably be discussed in an issue
first.[ ] This PR contains test cases, if meaningful.
- [ ] A reviewer from the core maintainer team has been assigned for this PR.
If you don't know who could review this, please indicate so. The list of
suggested reviewers on the right can help you.Please ensure all communication adheres to the code of conduct.
-->
bjorn3 submitted PR review.
bjorn3 created PR review comment:
I think you should default
function_alignment
toisa.symbol_alignment()
.
uweigand created PR review comment:
I didn't do that because it seemed that would allow a caller to override the function alignment to smaller than
isa.symbol_alignment()
, and that simply doesn't work on s390x.
uweigand submitted PR review.
cfallin created PR review comment:
This list of flags is long enough now that it's starting to feel a bit error-prone; and e.g. the diff adding
false
in the right places is hard to review carefully. Could we turn this into a struct of flags?
cfallin submitted PR review.
cfallin submitted PR review.
uweigand updated PR #4702 from s390x-align-fixes
to main
.
uweigand submitted PR review.
uweigand created PR review comment:
Agreed, that makes sense. Like this?
cfallin submitted PR review.
cfallin merged PR #4702.
Last updated: Nov 22 2024 at 17:03 UTC