Hi!
On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 05:09:06PM -0600, Bill Schmidt wrote:
> @@ -12933,9 +12974,27 @@
> ""
> {
> if (TARGET_32BIT)
> - emit_jump_insn (gen_tablejumpsi (operands[0], operands[1]));
> + {
> + if (rs6000_speculate_indirect_jumps)
> + emit_jump_insn (gen_tablejumpsi (operands[0], operands[1]));
> + else
> + {
> + rtx ccreg = gen_reg_rtx (CCmode);
> + rtx jump = gen_tablejumpsi_nospec (operands[0], operands[1], ccreg);
> + emit_jump_insn (jump);
> + }
> + }
> else
> - emit_jump_insn (gen_tablejumpdi (operands[0], operands[1]));
> + {
> + if (rs6000_speculate_indirect_jumps)
> + emit_jump_insn (gen_tablejumpdi (operands[0], operands[1]));
> + else
> + {
> + rtx ccreg = gen_reg_rtx (CCmode);
> + rtx jump = gen_tablejumpdi_nospec (operands[0], operands[1], ccreg);
> + emit_jump_insn (jump);
> + }
> + }
> DONE;
> })
This is easier to read if you swap the "if"s (put the
rs6000_speculate_indirect_jumps test on the outside).
Okay for trunk with or without such a change. Also okay for the branches
after some testing (esp. on other ABIs, it is easy to break those together
with -mno-speculate-indirect-branches since no one sane would use that
combo on purpose).
Thanks!
Segher
