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


On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 10:51 AM, Andrew Pinski <pinskia@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.
>
> I think he is asking because TREE_STATIC (decl) || DECL_EXTERNAL
> (decl) might be an issue for STRING_CSTs.

TREE_STATIC is true for STRING_CSTs and DECL_EXTERNAL false, that looks ok.

Thanks
Sri

>
> Thanks,
> Andrew
>
>
>>
>> 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]