[Bug target/63304] Aarch64 pc-relative load offset out of range

["e.menezes at samsung dot com" <gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org>]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63304

--- Comment #32 from Evandro <e.menezes at samsung dot com> ---
(In reply to Ramana Radhakrishnan from comment #31)
> (In reply to Evandro from comment #30)
> > The performance impact of always referring to constants as if they were far
> > away is significant on targets which do not fuse ADRP and LDR together. 
> 
> What happens if you split them up and schedule them appropriately ? I didn't
> see any significant impact in my benchmarking on implementations that did
> not implement such fusion. Where people want performance in these cases they
> can well use -mpc-relative-literal-loads or -mcmodel=tiny - it's in there
> already.

Because of side effects of the Haiffa scheduler, the loads now pile up, and the
ADRPs may affect the load issue rate rather badly if not fused.  At leas on our
processor.  

Which brings another point, shouldn't there be just one ADRP per BB or,
ideally, per function?  Or am I missing something?

> > What's the status of the solution that evaluates the function size? 
> 
> I am not working on that follow-up as I didn't see the real need for it in
> the benchmarking results I was looking at. You are welcome to investigate.

OK