This is the mail archive of the
gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: 3.4 i386 code generation problem with leal
- From: Jan Hubicka <jh at suse dot cz>
- To: Brad Lucier <lucier at math dot purdue dot edu>, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org,rth at redaht dot com
- Cc: Jan Hubicka <jh at suse dot cz>, Andreas Jaeger <aj at suse dot de>,gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2003 22:10:08 +0200
- Subject: Re: 3.4 i386 code generation problem with leal
- References: <20030404215853.GA26506@kam.mff.cuni.cz> <200304070252.h372qhaU018530@banach.math.purdue.edu>
> > > But that line is:
> > > 52511 leal $1196+lf at GOTOFF, %esi
> > >
> > > And this looks really broken,
> >
> > Yes, that may be leftout of my PIC changes. I will dig into this.
>
> I filed a proper PR for this as target/10327; unfortunately, I hit
> return on the web form when I tried to hit ] and sent it with an
> incomplete subject line; maybe someone with GNATS write access can fix this.
Once again, the previous patch apparently didn't went out.
The problem is because we accept both (const (unspec GOT (const (plus
(symbol) (int))))) and (const (plus (unspec GOT (symbol)) (int)))
and get confused later. This patch makes us to accept the second
alternative only that deals better with adjust_address and friends.
Bootstrapped/regtested with -fPIC
Mon Apr 7 21:52:54 CEST 2003 Jan Hubicka <jh at suse dot cz>
* i386.c (legitimate_pic_address_disp_p): Do not accept PLUS in the
GOTOFF operand.
(legitimize_pic_address): Move plus outside the unspec.
* i386.c (legitimate_constant_p): Check (CONST (PLUS (UNSPEC ...
for validity.
Index: config/i386/i386.c
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvs/gcc/gcc/gcc/config/i386/i386.c,v
retrieving revision 1.557
diff -c -3 -p -r1.557 i386.c
*** config/i386/i386.c 3 Apr 2003 17:40:47 -0000 1.557
--- config/i386/i386.c 7 Apr 2003 19:52:33 -0000
*************** legitimate_pic_address_disp_p (disp)
*** 5833,5838 ****
--- 5833,5840 ----
return false;
return GET_CODE (XVECEXP (disp, 0, 0)) == SYMBOL_REF;
case UNSPEC_GOTOFF:
+ if (GET_CODE (XVECEXP (disp, 0, 0)) == SYMBOL_REF
+ || GET_CODE (XVECEXP (disp, 0, 0)) == LABEL_REF)
return local_symbolic_operand (XVECEXP (disp, 0, 0), Pmode);
case UNSPEC_GOTTPOFF:
case UNSPEC_GOTNTPOFF:
*************** legitimize_pic_address (orig, reg)
*** 6146,6152 ****
if (reload_in_progress)
regs_ever_live[PIC_OFFSET_TABLE_REGNUM] = 1;
! new = gen_rtx_UNSPEC (Pmode, gen_rtvec (1, addr), UNSPEC_GOTOFF);
new = gen_rtx_CONST (Pmode, new);
new = gen_rtx_PLUS (Pmode, pic_offset_table_rtx, new);
--- 6148,6162 ----
if (reload_in_progress)
regs_ever_live[PIC_OFFSET_TABLE_REGNUM] = 1;
! if (GET_CODE (addr) == CONST)
! addr = XEXP (addr, 0);
! if (GET_CODE (addr) == PLUS)
! {
! new = gen_rtx_UNSPEC (Pmode, gen_rtvec (1, XEXP (addr, 0)), UNSPEC_GOTOFF);
! new = gen_rtx_PLUS (Pmode, new, XEXP (addr, 1));
! }
! else
! new = gen_rtx_UNSPEC (Pmode, gen_rtvec (1, addr), UNSPEC_GOTOFF);
new = gen_rtx_CONST (Pmode, new);
new = gen_rtx_PLUS (Pmode, pic_offset_table_rtx, new);
*** 5674,5679 ****
--- 5674,5686 ----
&& tls_symbolic_operand (XEXP (inner, 0), Pmode))
return false;
+ if (GET_CODE (inner) == PLUS)
+ {
+ if (GET_CODE (XEXP (inner, 1)) != CONST_INT)
+ return false;
+ inner = XEXP (inner, 0);
+ }
+
/* Only some unspecs are valid as "constants". */
if (GET_CODE (inner) == UNSPEC)
switch (XINT (inner, 1))
*************** legitimate_pic_address_disp_p (disp)
*** 5833,5838 ****
--- 5840,5847 ----
return false;
return GET_CODE (XVECEXP (disp, 0, 0)) == SYMBOL_REF;
case UNSPEC_GOTOFF:
+ if (GET_CODE (XVECEXP (disp, 0, 0)) == SYMBOL_REF
+ || GET_CODE (XVECEXP (disp, 0, 0)) == LABEL_REF)
return local_symbolic_operand (XVECEXP (disp, 0, 0), Pmode);
case UNSPEC_GOTTPOFF:
case UNSPEC_GOTNTPOFF: