On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 2:16 AM, Uros Bizjak <ubiz...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 10:46 AM, Richard Guenther > <richard.guent...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>>> TARGET_MEM_REF only works on ptr_mode. This patch allows 32bit >>>>>>>>> address >>>>>>>>> in x32 mode. OK for trunk? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Do you perhaps have a testcase to help in analyzing the problem? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> See: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49780 >>>>>> >>>>>> I don't think that tree-ssa-address/addr_for_mem_ref is correct when >>>>>> REALLY_EXPAND is false. It constructs RTX "template" in pointer_mode, >>>>>> which is not necessary valid and is rejected from >>>>>> ix86_validate_address_p. When really expanding the expression, we have >>>>>> a conversion at the end: >>>>>> >>>>>> gen_addr_rtx (pointer_mode, sym, bse, idx, st, off, &address, NULL, >>>>>> NULL); >>>>>> if (pointer_mode != address_mode) >>>>>> address = convert_memory_address (address_mode, address); >>>>>> return address; >>>>>> >>>>>> This is in fact your r175912 change in the fix for PR47383 - you need >>>>>> to do something with template as well... >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Since TARGET_MEM_REF only works on ptr_mode, I don't think >>>>> we can change template. We just need to accept TARGET_MEM_REF >>>>> in ptr_mode and fix it up later. >>>> >>>> No, a template is used to get some insight into the supported address >>>> structure. If there is a mismatch, this approach fails, we can as well >>>> give the compiler whatever fake template we want. > > I have investigated other Pmode != ptr_mode targets, and none of them > check the mode of a register in TARGET_LEGITIMATE_ADDRESS_P (or > equivalent GO_IF_LEGITIMATE_ADDRESS). All it matters is only if there > is a register and regno of the register. > > Attached patch simply removes these two checks, as it seems they are > not needed. This also follows how other Pmode != ptr_mode targets. > > 2011-07-19 Uros Bizjak <ubiz...@gmail.com> > > PR target/49780 > * config/i386/i386.c (ix86_legitimate_address_p): Remove checks that > base and index registers are in Pmode. > > Patch was bootstrapped and regression tested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu > {,-m32}. Can you please re-test it on x32?
Comparing with my patch, which only allows DImode and SImode, it caused the following regressions: FAIL: libgomp.fortran/omp_atomic1.f90 -O1 execution test FAIL: libgomp.fortran/omp_atomic1.f90 -O2 execution test FAIL: libgomp.fortran/omp_atomic1.f90 -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer execution test FAIL: libgomp.fortran/omp_atomic1.f90 -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer -funroll-all-loops -finline-functions execution test FAIL: libgomp.fortran/omp_atomic1.f90 -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer -funroll-loops execution test FAIL: libgomp.fortran/omp_atomic1.f90 -O3 -g execution test FAIL: libgomp.fortran/omp_atomic1.f90 -Os execution test > BTW: I still think that template should return the same address > structure as expansion, but this won't crash the compiler anymore. > > Uros. > -- H.J. -
