On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 1:45 AM, Richard Sandiford
<richard.sandif...@linaro.org> wrote:
> "H.J. Lu" <hongjiu...@intel.com> writes:
>> @@ -706,7 +706,13 @@ precompute_register_parameters (int num_actuals, struct
>> arg_data *args,
>> pseudo now. TLS symbols sometimes need a call to resolve. */
>> if (CONSTANT_P (args[i].value)
>> && !targetm.legitimate_constant_p (args[i].mode, args[i].value))
>> - args[i].value = force_reg (args[i].mode, args[i].value);
>> + {
>> + if (GET_MODE (args[i].value) != args[i].mode)
>> + args[i].value = convert_to_mode (args[i].mode,
>> + args[i].value,
>> + args[i].unsignedp);
>> + args[i].value = force_reg (args[i].mode, args[i].value);
>> + }
>
> But if GET_MODE (args[i].value) != args[i].mode, then the call to
> targetm.legitimate_constant_p looks wrong. The mode passed in the
> first argument is supposed to the mode of the second argument.
>
> Is there any reason why this and the following:
>
> /* If we are to promote the function arg to a wider mode,
> do it now. */
>
> if (args[i].mode != TYPE_MODE (TREE_TYPE (args[i].tree_value)))
> args[i].value
> = convert_modes (args[i].mode,
> TYPE_MODE (TREE_TYPE (args[i].tree_value)),
> args[i].value, args[i].unsignedp);
>
> need to be done in the current order? I can't think of any off-hand.
> If not, would swapping them also fix the bug?
>
> (I can't review this either way, of course.)
It works on the testcase. I will do a full test.
Thanks.
--
H.J.
