https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64003
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org <rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #25 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org <rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org>
---
(In reply to Ilya Enkovich from comment #21)
> (In reply to Jeffrey A. Law from comment #20)
> > Ilya, it's the function call in this code I think:
> >
> > (cond [(eq_attr "length_nobnd" "!0")
> > (plus (symbol_ref ("ix86_bnd_prefixed_insn_p (insn)"))
> > (attr "length_nobnd"))
> >
> > You're calling out to ix86_bnd_prefixed_insn_p, and that's problematical for
> > branch shortening if I'm understanding Joern's comments here and David's
> > comments in the PA port correctly.
>
> Then we have three problematic patterns and the easiest way to handle it is
> to get rid of ix86_bnd_prefixed_insn_p call in length computation for them.
> I think the easiest way to do it is to have separate bnd and nobnd patterns
> for these instructions. Attached patch helps me to resolve valgrind error.
> Is such approach fine?
If all you want to do is add 1 byte to the length to account for a prefix
then it might be cleaner to use ADJUST_INSN_LENGTH. You could then keep
the single nobnd patterns.
