On 07/14/11 18:39, Richard Henderson wrote: > On 07/14/2011 09:19 AM, Bernd Schmidt wrote: >> Yes, but not using the fixed got pointer in r1, but a random other >> register which can have different values in the function. > > Oh, I think I see. > > So if this really had been a PLUS, as implied by the LO_SUM, > we would have had garbage input, produced garbage output, but > (eventually) ignored the result. > > But since this really is a load from memory, the garbage > input is immediately fatal. > > Have I got that right?
This is correct. > If so, the patch with the use of gen_const_mem is ok. Will commit. (Although now I wonder if we could instead use one of the speculative load instructions? There's one that sets the NaT bit if the load would fault, isn't there? It's been so long I can't remember.) > It does raise the question of whether we ought to completely > change the way we represent the pairing of LTOFFX/LDXMOV > relocations. This I can't answer since I don't know the definition of these. Bernd
