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: PATCH [2/n]: Prepare x32: Convert pointer to TLS symbol if needed


On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 7:06 AM, H.J. Lu <hjl.tools@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 1:45 AM, Richard Sandiford
> <richard.sandiford@linaro.org> wrote:
>> "H.J. Lu" <hongjiu.lu@intel.com> writes:
>>> @@ -706,7 +706,13 @@ precompute_register_parameters (int num_actuals, struct arg_data *args,
>>> ? ? ? ? ?pseudo now. ?TLS symbols sometimes need a call to resolve. ?*/
>>> ? ? ? if (CONSTANT_P (args[i].value)
>>> ? ? ? ? ? && !targetm.legitimate_constant_p (args[i].mode, args[i].value))
>>> - ? ? ? args[i].value = force_reg (args[i].mode, args[i].value);
>>> + ? ? ? {
>>> + ? ? ? ? if (GET_MODE (args[i].value) != args[i].mode)
>>> + ? ? ? ? ? args[i].value = convert_to_mode (args[i].mode,
>>> + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?args[i].value,
>>> + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?args[i].unsignedp);
>>> + ? ? ? ? args[i].value = force_reg (args[i].mode, args[i].value);
>>> + ? ? ? }
>>
>> But if GET_MODE (args[i].value) != args[i].mode, then the call to
>> targetm.legitimate_constant_p looks wrong. ?The mode passed in the
>> first argument is supposed to the mode of the second argument.
>>
>> Is there any reason why this and the following:
>>
>> ? ? ? ?/* If we are to promote the function arg to a wider mode,
>> ? ? ? ? ? do it now. ?*/
>>
>> ? ? ? ?if (args[i].mode != TYPE_MODE (TREE_TYPE (args[i].tree_value)))
>> ? ? ? ? ?args[i].value
>> ? ? ? ? ? ?= convert_modes (args[i].mode,
>> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? TYPE_MODE (TREE_TYPE (args[i].tree_value)),
>> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? args[i].value, args[i].unsignedp);
>>
>> need to be done in the current order? ?I can't think of any off-hand.
>> If not, would swapping them also fix the bug?
>>
>> (I can't review this either way, of course.)
>
> It works on the testcase. ?I will do a full test.
>

It works.  There are no regressions on Linux/x86-64.
OK for trunk?

Thanks.

-- 
H.J.
----

2011-06-29  H.J. Lu  <hongjiu.lu@intel.com>

	PR middle-end/47715
	* calls.c (precompute_register_parameters): Promote the function
	argument before checking non-legitimate constant.

Attachment: gcc-x32-pr47715-1.patch
Description: Text document


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