It looks like I forgot to count the extra load of r2 for ABI_AIX
indirect calls when calculating the buffer size needed by
rs6000_indirect_call_template. This patch fixes the miscalculation.
Tested by building a powerpc64le-linux compiler. OK to apply?
* config/rs6000/rs6000.c (rs6000_indirect_call_template_1): Increase
str[] size to 160. Comment.
diff --git a/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.c b/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.c
index 401e7194887..5f40f2c6024 100644
--- a/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.c
+++ b/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.c
@@ -21609,10 +21609,47 @@ rs6000_indirect_call_template_1 (rtx *operands,
unsigned int funop,
bool sibcall)
{
/* -Wformat-overflow workaround, without which gcc thinks that %u
- might produce 10 digits. */
+ might produce 10 digits. Note that -Wformat-overflow will not
+ currently warn here for str[], so do not rely on a warning to
+ ensure str[] is correctly sized. */
gcc_assert (funop <= MAX_RECOG_OPERANDS);
- static char str[144]; /* 1 spare */
+ /* Currently, funop is either 0 or 1. The maximum string is always
+ a !speculate 64-bit __tls_get_addr call.
+
+ ABI_AIX:
+ . 9 ld 2,%3\n\t
+ . 27 .reloc .,R_PPC64_TLSGD,%2\n\t
+ . 29 .reloc .,R_PPC64_PLTSEQ,%z1\n\t
+ . 9 crset 2\n\t
+ . 27 .reloc .,R_PPC64_TLSGD,%2\n\t
+ . 30 .reloc .,R_PPC64_PLTCALL,%z1\n\t
+ . 10 beq%T1l-\n\t
+ . 10 ld 2,%4(1)
+ .---
+ .151
+
+ ABI_ELFv2:
+ . 27 .reloc .,R_PPC64_TLSGD,%2\n\t
+ . 29 .reloc .,R_PPC64_PLTSEQ,%z1\n\t
+ . 9 crset 2\n\t
+ . 27 .reloc .,R_PPC64_TLSGD,%2\n\t
+ . 30 .reloc .,R_PPC64_PLTCALL,%z1\n\t
+ . 10 beq%T1l-\n\t
+ . 10 ld 2,%3(1)
+ .---
+ .142
+
+ ABI_V4:
+ . 27 .reloc .,R_PPC64_TLSGD,%2\n\t
+ . 35 .reloc .,R_PPC64_PLTSEQ,%z1+32768\n\t
+ . 9 crset 2\n\t
+ . 27 .reloc .,R_PPC64_TLSGD,%2\n\t
+ . 36 .reloc .,R_PPC64_PLTCALL,%z1+32768\n\t
+ . 8 beq%T1l-
+ .---
+ .141 */
+ static char str[160]; /* 8 spare */
char *s = str;
const char *ptrload = TARGET_64BIT ? "d" : "wz";
--
Alan Modra
Australia Development Lab, IBM
