2012/2/23 Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com>:
> On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 05:38:37PM +0100, Kai Tietz wrote:
>> --- config/i386/i386.c (revision 184486)
>> +++ config/i386/i386.c (working copy)
>> @@ -13241,6 +13241,22 @@
>>
>> if (TARGET_64BIT)
>> {
>> + if (GET_CODE (x) == CONST
>> + && GET_CODE (XEXP (x, 0)) == PLUS
>> + && GET_MODE (XEXP (x, 0)) == Pmode
>> + && CONST_INT_P (XEXP (XEXP (x, 0), 1))
>> + && GET_CODE (XEXP (XEXP (x, 0), 0)) == UNSPEC
>> + && XINT (XEXP (XEXP (x, 0), 0), 1) == UNSPEC_PCREL)
>> + {
>> + rtx x2 = XVECEXP (XEXP (XEXP (x, 0), 0), 0, 0);
>> + x = gen_rtx_PLUS (Pmode, XEXP (XEXP (x, 0), 1), x2);
>> + if (MEM_P (orig_x))
>> + x = replace_equiv_address_nv (orig_x, x);
>> + return x;
>> + }
>> + if (GET_CODE (x) == UNSPEC
>> + && XINT (x, 1) == UNSPEC_PCREL)
>> + return XVECEXP (x, 0, 0);
>
> Here you don't need the MEM_P (orig_x) handling?
> That's strange.
>
>> if (GET_CODE (x) != CONST
>> || GET_CODE (XEXP (x, 0)) != UNSPEC
>> || (XINT (XEXP (x, 0), 1) != UNSPEC_GOTPCREL
>
> Jakub
Hmm, those three lines are not necessary. Sorry, I missed to remove
them from my patch.
>> + if (GET_CODE (x) == UNSPEC
>> + && XINT (x, 1) == UNSPEC_PCREL)
>> + return XVECEXP (x, 0, 0);
But indeed the mem-case isn't necessary here, as this pattern never matches.
I will retest without those three-lines and post updated patch then.
Regards,
Kai
