On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 4:26 PM, Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com> wrote:
>> >> I'm afraid that simple scan loop won't work correctly on x32. There >> >> are some issues with UNSPEC_TP for this target, so we have to generate >> >> zero_extend of SImode UNSPEC, e.g.: >> >> >> >> (plus:DI (zero_extend:DI (unspec:SI [...] UNSPEC_TP) (reg:DI ...)) >> >> >> >> as can be seen in get_thread_pointer to construct the address. It >> >> looks that your loop won't find the UNSPEC_TP tag in the above case. >> > >> > You're right, for -m32 it would need to start with > > Yeah, I meant -mx32 (which I have no experience with nor spare time for). > >> > rtx *x = &addr; >> > + while (GET_CODE (*x) == ZERO_EXTEND >> > + || GET_CODE (*x) == AND >> > + || GET_CODE (*x) == SUBREG) >> > + x = &XEXP (*x, 0); >> >> Oh, you can use SImode_address_operand predicate here. > > Do I need to loop, or can there be just one SImode_address_operand IIRC, apart from the whole address, only UNSPEC_TP can be zero_extended. It is a hardware "feature" (== HW bug) that addr32 doesn't apply to segment registers. > code? Do you want to use the iterators (as in the second patch) or not > (then is > if (SImode_address_operand (addr, VOIDmode)) > x = &XEXP (addr, 0); > ok)? Is Pmode always SImode for -mx32, or depending on some switch or Nope, it depends on -maddress-mode switch, and can be SImode or DImode. > something? Would it be acceptable to just guard the changes in the patch > with !TARGET_X32 and let H.J. deal with that target? I'm afraid I'm lost > when to ZERO_EXTEND addr (if needed at all), etc. If you wish, I can take your patch and take if further. -mx32 is a delicate beast... Uros. > > Jakub
