[LLVMdev] MIPS n64 ABI and non-PIC

[Daniel Sanders]

GCC does the same thing. I haven't found anything written down that explains this yet but I believe it's that PIC consistently generates faster and smaller code than non-PIC for N64.

For example, a non-PIC implementation of getAddrLocal() would probably generate something like this:
lui $1, %highest(foo)
add $1, $1, %higher(foo)
dsll $1, $1, 32
lui $2, %hi(foo)
add $2, $2, %lo(foo)
add $1, $1, $2
which is 6 instructions per-symbol referenced. The current PIC implementation generates this:
lui $1, %hi(%neg(%gp_rel(bar)))
daddu $1, $1, $25
daddiu $1, $1, %lo(%neg(%gp_rel(bar)))
ld $2, %got_disp(foo)($1)
which is a one-time cost of 3 instructions to set up the GOT pointer, plus one load per-symbol referenced.

From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu] On Behalf Of Brandon Hill
Sent: 29 April 2014 22:35
To: llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu
Subject: [LLVMdev] MIPS n64 ABI and non-PIC

Has anyone experimented with generating non-PIC for MIPS64 and the n64 ABI? Currently MipsISelLowering.cpp uses conditions like:

 if ((getTargetMachine().getRelocationModel() == Reloc::PIC_) || IsN64) {
 }

around any PIC code generation.  Is generating non-PIC just untested, or is it known not to work?  I can't find any discussion of it anywhere. I ran into this when trying to see why --relocation-model=static had no effect on the output.  I'm game to test it, but it would help to know that it isn't pointless due to a significant known issue.
Brandon

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20140430/2521c873/attachment.html>