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


ok (for google branch).

David

On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 1:44 PM, Sriraman Tallam <tmsriram@google.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 12:59 PM, Xinliang David Li <davidxl@google.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 11:59 AM, Sriraman Tallam <tmsriram@google.com> wrote:
>>> 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.
>>
>> The values for STRING_CST make sense, but it is not documented in
>> tree.h for use with STRING_CST. Maybe do this:
>>
>>  if (((TREE_CODE (decl) == VAR_DECL&& (TREE_STATIC (decl) ||
>> DECL_EXTERNAL (decl))
>>        ||TREE_CODE (decl) == STRING_CST)
>>       && ix86_in_large_data_p (decl))
>>
>> which can be simplified to:
>>
>>  if ((TREE_CODE (decl) == VAR_DECL && is_global_var (decl) ||TREE_CODE
>> (decl) == STRING_CST)
>>   && ix86_in_large_data_p (decl))
>
> Patch updated.
>
> Thanks
> Sri
>
>>      ...
>>
>> David
>>>
>>> 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]