"H.J. Lu" <hjl.to...@gmail.com> writes: > On Sun, Aug 14, 2011 at 9:22 AM, H.J. Lu <hjl.to...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Hi, >> >> This patch is needed for x32 and only affects x32. Any comments/objections >> to apply this to finish x32 support? >> >> Thanks. >> >> >> H.J. >> ---- >> On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 6:25 AM, H.J. Lu <hjl.to...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> This is the last patch needed for x32 support. >>> convert_memory_address_addr_space >>> is called to convert a memory address without overflow/underflow. It >>> should be safe >>> to transform >>> >>> (zero_extend:DI (plus:SI (FOO:SI) (const_int Y))) >>> >>> to >>> >>> (plus:DI (zero_extend:DI (FOO:SI)) (const_int Y)) >>> >>> GCC only works this way. Any comments? >>> >>> Thanks. >>> >>> H.J. >>> ---- >>> On Sun, Aug 7, 2011 at 1:08 PM, H.J. Lu <hongjiu...@intel.com> wrote: >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> We transform >>>> >>>> ptr_extend:DI (plus:SI (FOO:SI) (const_int Y))) >>>> >>>> to >>>> >>>> (plus:DI (ptr_extend:DI (FOO:SI)) (const_int Y)) >>>> >>>> since this is how Pmode != ptr_mode is supported even if the resulting >>>> address may overflow/underflow. It is also true for x32 which has >>>> zero_extend instead of ptr_extend. I have tried different approaches >>>> to avoid transforming >>>> >>>> (zero_extend:DI (plus:SI (FOO:SI) (const_int Y))) >>>> >>>> to >>>> >>>> (plus:DI (zero_extend:DI (FOO:SI)) (const_int Y)) >>>> >>>> without success. This patch relaxes the condition to check >>>> POINTERS_EXTEND_UNSIGNED != 0 instead if POINTERS_EXTEND_UNSIGNED < 0 >>>> to cover both ptr_extend and zero_extend. We can investigate a better >>>> approach for ptr_extend and zero_extend later. For now, I believe it >>>> is the saftest way to support ptr_extend and zero_extend. >>>> >>>> Any comments? >>>> >>>> Thanks. >>>> >>>> >>>> H.J. > > I am checking in this patch, which only affects x32 > and nothing else. This one character change, from > > POINTERS_EXTEND_UNSIGNED < 0 > > to > > POINTERS_EXTEND_UNSIGNED != 0 > > creates a working x32 GCC. This isn't perfect. I have > tried many different approaches without any success. > I will revisit it if we run into any problems with x32 > applications.
Sorry, I know it's frustrating when things don't get reviewed, but I strongly object to a nonobvious patch like this being applied without approval. (And for the record, I can't approve it. :-)) Richard
