This is the mail archive of the
gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
[Bug target/27770] [4.2 Regression] wrong code in spec tests for -ftree-vectorize -maltivec
- From: "richard at codesourcery dot com" <gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- To: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: 6 Jun 2006 15:02:15 -0000
- Subject: [Bug target/27770] [4.2 Regression] wrong code in spec tests for -ftree-vectorize -maltivec
- References: <bug-27770-4503@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
- Reply-to: gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org
------- Comment #9 from richard at codesourcery dot com 2006-06-06 15:02 -------
Subject: Re: [4.2 Regression] wrong code in spec tests for -ftree-vectorize
-maltivec
"pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org> writes:
> What about instead of absolute numbers doing label subtraction for
> section anchors and then we can defer the decision for the layout of
> the section until after all functions are done compiling?
I don't think symbolic offsets would work, if that's what you mean.
We need to know the constant offset so that (a) we can enforce
TARGET_{MIN,MAX}_ANCHOR_OFFSET (which is more important for other
targets than it is for PowerPC) and (b) we know for PowerPC-like
setups whether the offset needs an addis.
Richard
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27770