This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: x86 PIC regressions
- To: Richard Henderson <rth at cygnus dot com>
- Subject: Re: x86 PIC regressions
- From: Jeffrey A Law <law at cygnus dot com>
- Date: Sat, 05 Sep 1998 13:51:05 -0600
- cc: Robert Lipe <robertl at dgii dot com>, "H.J. Lu" <hjl at lucon dot org>, egcs at cygnus dot com, egcs-patches at cygnus dot com
- Reply-To: law at cygnus dot com
In message <19980904105637.A19127@dot.cygnus.com>you write:
> > If we can stop reload from creating new references into the static
> > store or constant pool don't most of these problems go away?
>
> Either that, or teach reload that it might have to do something
> more to fix up the problem. Which actually gets mighty confusing
> with, say, the PIC register in a pseudo.
Right.
> > And isn't the only way we get these references via the handling of
> > REG_EQUIV stuff?
>
> I think so. And if that's the case, there's no need to invent
> any new construct-this-constant-by-parts-on-the-stack sort of
> solution. If we can't reload the constant directly, we ignore
> the REG_EQUIV and spill the register in question.
Hmmm. Thinking more about this, isn't that what LEGITIMATE_PIC_OPERAND_P
is supposed to be doing for us -- prune away REG_EQUIV notes which cause
these kinds of problems for PIC code.
jeff