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

["ramana at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org>]

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

--- Comment #31 from Ramana Radhakrishnan <ramana at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(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.

> 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.

> Should
> this be optionally enabled only?  

It is enabled by default for -mcmodel=small and -mcmodel=large. 

And no because it has been done after quite a lot of complaints from the
general user community that people are unable to build large software bases
with the compiler.

> Could the assembler be left to address this issue by
> relaxing such loads? :-P  

No...