On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 7:04 AM, Uros Bizjak <ubiz...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 3:47 PM, H.J. Lu <hjl.to...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> 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.
>
> There is no non-DImode addresses in insn stream, so I doubt the bug is
> due to my change.
>
I saw the same failures on x86-64:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2011-07/msg02224.html
Can you take a look?
Thanks.
--
H.J.
