On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 3:13 PM, Richard Sandiford <rdsandif...@googlemail.com> wrote: > "H.J. Lu" <hjl.to...@gmail.com> writes: >> On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 12:57 PM, Richard Sandiford >> <rdsandif...@googlemail.com> wrote: >>> This patch is an attempt at the routine sketched here: >>> >>> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-10/msg01016.html >>> >>> for decomposing addresses into constituent parts. It applies >>> on top of the patches I sent out earlier today. To summarise >>> that message, the main point is to have an address description >>> in which we know how the individual parts relate to one another. >>> >>> If the patch looks OK, I'd like to try doing the same for IRA. >>> Maybe other passes could use the routines too; I'm not sure. >>> >>> An alternative to having a generic routine would be to add a target hook. >>> However, the whole target address interface could do with some clean-up, >>> so I'd rather not add a new hook until either (a) it becomes absolutely >>> necessary, because of some target weirdness I don't know about or >>> (b) there's a coordinated plan to handle things like legitimacy, >>> base classes, and index classes. >>> >>> I'm hoping this will help with the x32 problems that HJ is seeing. >>> Like Vlad, I don't have a set-up to try for certain, but I tried >> >> Do you have a git branch I can try? When I applied your patch on >> the current trunk, I got >> >> patching file Makefile.in >> patching file rtl.h >> patching file rtlanal.c >> patching file lra-constraints.c >> Hunk #3 FAILED at 464. >> Hunk #4 succeeded at 1319 (offset -22 lines). >> Hunk #5 succeeded at 1505 (offset -22 lines). >> Hunk #6 FAILED at 2380. >> Hunk #7 FAILED at 2499. >> Hunk #8 succeeded at 2468 (offset -88 lines). >> Hunk #9 FAILED at 2583. >> Hunk #10 FAILED at 2648. >> Hunk #11 succeeded at 2595 with fuzz 1 (offset -77 lines). >> Hunk #12 FAILED at 2690. >> Hunk #13 FAILED at 2716. >> 7 out of 13 hunks FAILED -- saving rejects to file lra-constraints.c.rej > > Sorry, here's a combined patch with all 5 changes. > > Richard >
It fixes: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55049#c3 I can continue x32 build. Thanks. -- H.J.
