[qfcc] Implement flow analysis for Ruamoko calls

Thanks to the use/def/kill lists attached to statements for pseudo-ops,
it turned out to be a lot easier to implement flow analysis (and thus
dags processing) than I expected. I suspect I should go back and make
the old call code use them too, and probably several other places, as
that will greatly simplify the edge setting.
This commit is contained in:
Bill Currie 2022-01-21 16:19:04 +09:00
parent c53127707b
commit 616a52efb5
4 changed files with 35 additions and 7 deletions

View File

@ -113,9 +113,9 @@ typedef struct statement_s {
operand_t *opc;
struct expr_s *expr; ///< source expression for this statement
int number; ///< number of this statement in function
operand_t *use; ///< list of pseudo operands used
operand_t *def; ///< list of pseudo operands defined
operand_t *kill; ///< list of pseudo operands killed
operand_t *use; ///< list of auxiliary operands used
operand_t *def; ///< list of auxiliary operands defined
operand_t *kill; ///< list of auxiliary operands killed
} statement_t;
typedef struct sblock_s {

View File

@ -406,7 +406,7 @@ dag_find_node (def_t *def, void *_daglabel)
}
static void
dagnode_set_edges (dag_t *dag, dagnode_t *n)
dagnode_set_edges (dag_t *dag, dagnode_t *n, statement_t *s)
{
int i;
@ -447,13 +447,21 @@ dagnode_set_edges (dag_t *dag, dagnode_t *n)
set_add (n->edges, child->number);
}
}
for (operand_t *use = s->use; use; use = use->next) {
if (use->op_type == op_pseudo) {
continue;
}
daglabel_t *label = operand_label (dag, use);
label->live = 1;
set_add (n->edges, label->dagnode->number);
}
if (n->type == st_func) {
const char *num_params = 0;
int first_param = 0;
flowvar_t **flowvars = dag->flownode->graph->func->vars;
if (!strcmp (n->label->opcode, "call")) {
internal_error (0, "not implemented");
// nothing to do
} else if (!strncmp (n->label->opcode, "rcall", 5)) {
num_params = n->label->opcode + 6;
first_param = 2;
@ -864,7 +872,7 @@ dag_create (flownode_t *flownode)
n->type = s->type;
n->label = op;
dagnode_add_children (dag, n, operands, children);
dagnode_set_edges (dag, n);
dagnode_set_edges (dag, n, s);
dagnode_set_reachable (dag, n);
}
}

View File

@ -1278,7 +1278,12 @@ flow_analyze_statement (statement_t *s, set_t *use, set_t *def, set_t *kill,
}
}
if (strcmp (s->opcode, "call") == 0) {
internal_error (s->expr, "not implemented");
// call uses opc to specify the destination of the return value
// parameter usage is taken care of by the statement's use
// list
flow_add_op_var (def, s->opc, 0);
// don't want old argument processing
calln = -1;
} else if (strncmp (s->opcode, "call", 4) == 0) {
start = 0;
calln = s->opcode[5] - '0';

View File

@ -1091,6 +1091,8 @@ expr_call (sblock_t *sblock, expr_t *call, operand_t **op)
defspace_t *arg_space = current_func->arguments;
expr_t *func = call->e.branch.target;
expr_t *args = call->e.branch.args;
operand_t *use = 0;
operand_t *kill = 0;
defspace_reset (arg_space);
@ -1112,6 +1114,17 @@ expr_call (sblock_t *sblock, expr_t *call, operand_t **op)
expr_t *assign = assign_expr (new_def_expr (def), a);
expr_file_line (assign, call);
sblock = statement_slist (sblock, assign);
// The call both uses and kills the arguments: use is obvious, but kill
// is because the callee has direct access to them and might modify
// them
// need two ops for the one def because there's two lists
operand_t *u = def_operand (def, arg_type, call);
operand_t *k = def_operand (def, arg_type, call);
u->next = use;
use = u;
k->next = kill;
kill = k;
}
statement_t *s = new_statement (st_func, "call", call);
sblock = statement_subexpr (sblock, func, &s->opa);
@ -1123,6 +1136,8 @@ expr_call (sblock_t *sblock, expr_t *call, operand_t **op)
}
s->opc = *op;
}
s->use = use;
s->kill = kill;
sblock_add_statement (sblock, s);
sblock->next = new_sblock ();
return sblock->next;