This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: [Google/gcc-4_9][PATCH][target/x86_64] PR 63538


Perhaps explicitly allowing STRING_CST to go through the large data
check, instead of removing the var-decl check? Do you see other
opcodes that need to be handled too?

David

On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 10:46 AM, Sriraman Tallam <tmsriram@google.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 10:42 AM, Xinliang David Li <davidxl@google.com> wrote:
>> Why removing the tree_code check?
>
> The actual problem happens because STRING_CSTs (end up in .lrodata)
> are not set a far address as they dont match the VAR_DECL check here.
> Futher,  "ix86_in_large_data_p" call has the TREE_CODE check to do the
> right thing so this seems unnecessary & buggy here.
>
> Thanks
> Sri
>
>>
>> David
>>
>> On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 10:35 AM, Sriraman Tallam <tmsriram@google.com> wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>>    This patch is under review for trunk GCC :
>>> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-10/msg01638.html.
>>>
>>>     In the mean time, is this ok for google/gcc-4_9 branch?  Without
>>> this, -mcmodel=medium is unusable if .lrodata goes beyond the 2G
>>> boundary.
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>> Sri


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]