target/10205: Incorrect code generated for H8300 "normal" mode
Kazu Hirata
kazu@cs.umass.edu
Fri Mar 28 14:31:00 GMT 2003
Hi Dhananjay,
> The patch below fixes this. If it is OK, it should be applied to
> both mainline and 3.3 branch.
Actually, I have come up with a basically identical patch, which I am
asking the submitter to test in private mail. When he responds, I'll
add your name in the ChangeLog entry. Mine looks like this, but I
like your POINTER_SIZE approach.
Kazu Hirata
Index: h8300.c
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvs/gcc/gcc/gcc/config/h8300/h8300.c,v
retrieving revision 1.221
diff -c -r1.221 h8300.c
*** h8300.c 22 Mar 2003 15:22:37 -0000 1.221
--- h8300.c 28 Mar 2003 03:33:36 -0000
***************
*** 1715,1723 ****
int from, to;
{
int offset = 0;
if (from == ARG_POINTER_REGNUM && to == FRAME_POINTER_REGNUM)
! offset = UNITS_PER_WORD + frame_pointer_needed * UNITS_PER_WORD;
else if (from == RETURN_ADDRESS_POINTER_REGNUM && to == FRAME_POINTER_REGNUM)
offset = frame_pointer_needed * UNITS_PER_WORD;
else
--- 1715,1726 ----
int from, to;
{
int offset = 0;
+ /* The number of bytes that the return address takes on the stack. */
+ int pc_size = (((TARGET_H8300H || TARGET_H8300S) && TARGET_NORMAL_MODE)
+ ? (UNITS_PER_WORD / 2) : UNITS_PER_WORD);
if (from == ARG_POINTER_REGNUM && to == FRAME_POINTER_REGNUM)
! offset = pc_size + frame_pointer_needed * UNITS_PER_WORD;
else if (from == RETURN_ADDRESS_POINTER_REGNUM && to == FRAME_POINTER_REGNUM)
offset = frame_pointer_needed * UNITS_PER_WORD;
else
***************
*** 1734,1744 ****
offset += round_frame_size (get_frame_size ());
if (from == ARG_POINTER_REGNUM && to == STACK_POINTER_REGNUM)
! offset += UNITS_PER_WORD; /* Skip saved PC */
}
-
- if ((TARGET_H8300H || TARGET_H8300S) && TARGET_NORMAL_MODE)
- offset -= 2;
return offset;
}
--- 1737,1744 ----
offset += round_frame_size (get_frame_size ());
if (from == ARG_POINTER_REGNUM && to == STACK_POINTER_REGNUM)
! offset += pc_size; /* Skip saved PC */
}
return offset;
}
More information about the Gcc-patches
mailing list