http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60655
--- Comment #6 from ramrad01 at arm dot com --- On 03/26/14 09:46, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60655 > > Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> changed: > > What |Removed |Added > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > CC| |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org > > --- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> --- > As discussed yesterday with Ramana on IRC, my suggested fix for this for 4.9 > is > something like: > --- gcc/dwarf2out.c 2014-03-03 08:24:14.841895755 +0100 > +++ gcc/dwarf2out.c 2014-03-26 10:42:32.027508796 +0100 > @@ -11326,7 +11326,12 @@ const_ok_for_output_1 (rtx *rtlp, void * > } > > if (GET_CODE (rtl) != SYMBOL_REF) > - return 0; > + { > + /* NOT is not handled by output_addr_const. */ > + if (GET_CODE (rtl) == NOT) > + return 1; > + return 0; > + } I have a very similar patch under testing only with a comment linking this to the bug report and bootstrapping and regression testing on aarch64, armhf and x86_64. > > if (CONSTANT_POOL_ADDRESS_P (rtl)) > { > > and for 5.0 we want to gather some statistics what we actually accept as CONST > operands in const_ok_for_output and then successfully emit it into debug info > and assemble that, and based on that adjust const_ok_for_output or it's > callers, so that for CONST expressions that have no chance of being assembled > we actually ignore the CONST around the expression and try to emit it as the > individual expressions. So, say instead of trying to emit DW_OP_addr > (-1-symbol) in this case which won't assemble we emit it as DW_OP_const1s -1 > DW_OP_addr (symbol) DW_OP_minus. Agreed. regards Ramana >
