This is the mail archive of the gcc@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: [ping] Re: m32c: pointer math vs sizetype again


On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 10:40 AM, DJ Delorie <dj@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> Ping?  Is this the right thing to do?  I'd like to get this (and a few
> other m32c bugs) resolved before the next release.

I don't think this is a suitable general solution.  Can you instead try the
attached which again tries to simply make sure we sign-extend a sizetype
offset if that is smaller than the pointer mode.

Thanks,
Richard.

>> This seems to work, with a suitable extendhipsi2 pattern for m32c:
>>
>> Index: expr.c
>> ===================================================================
>> --- expr.c    (revision 140759)
>> +++ expr.c    (working copy)
>> @@ -8455,12 +8459,34 @@ expand_expr_real_1 (tree exp, rtx target
>>             if (modifier != EXPAND_SUM && modifier != EXPAND_INITIALIZER)
>>               op0 = force_operand (op0, target);
>>             return REDUCE_BIT_FIELD (op0);
>>           }
>>       }
>>
>> +      if (code == POINTER_PLUS_EXPR
>> +       || TYPE_PRECISION (TREE_OPERAND (exp, 1)) < TYPE_PRECISION (TREE_OPERAND (exp, 0)))
>> +     {
>> +       rtx reg;
>> +       enum machine_mode imode, omode;
>> +
>> +       expand_operands (TREE_OPERAND (exp, 0), TREE_OPERAND (exp, 1),
>> +                        subtarget, &op0, &op1, 0);
>> +
>> +       if (op0 == const0_rtx)
>> +         return op1;
>> +       if (op1 == const0_rtx)
>> +         return op0;
>> +
>> +       imode = GET_MODE (op1);
>> +       omode = GET_MODE (op0);
>> +       reg = gen_reg_rtx (omode);
>> +       emit_move_insn (reg, gen_rtx_fmt_e (SIGN_EXTEND, omode, op1));
>> +       op1 = reg;
>> +       goto binop2;
>> +     }
>> +
>>        /* No sense saving up arithmetic to be done
>>        if it's all in the wrong mode to form part of an address.
>>        And force_operand won't know whether to sign-extend or
>>        zero-extend.  */
>>        if ((modifier != EXPAND_SUM && modifier != EXPAND_INITIALIZER)
>>         || mode != ptr_mode)
>>
>

Attachment: o
Description: Binary data


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