Mike Stump <mikest...@comcast.net> writes:
> On Aug 4, 2013, at 8:14 AM, Chung-Lin Tang <clt...@codesourcery.com> wrote:
>> On 13/7/15 1:43 AM, Diego Novillo wrote:
>>> Could you please repost the patch with its description? This thread
>>> is sufficiently old and noisy that I'm not even sure what the patch
>>> does nor why.
>>
>> Taking the same example in my first post:
>
>> Under -fPIC, the code in rtlanal.c:nonzero_address_p() does not properly
>> recognize the "PIC-reg + <constant>" form of load as a weak symbol; it
>> returns 'true' immediately after seeing the pic-reg indexing, and does
>> not test the wrapped symbol for DECL_WEAK.
>
> So, I can't help but think that others would say that looking into an
> unspec is by nature, the wrong way to do it, unless that code is in the
> port.
Yeah. I didn't want to reply again for fear of prolonging the thread
even more, but that's why I'd suggested removing:
/* Handle PIC references. */
if (XEXP (x, 0) == pic_offset_table_rtx
&& CONSTANT_P (XEXP (x, 1)))
return true;
altogether and using targetm.delegitimize_address instead. I think that's
our current interface for dealing with this kind of thing.
Thanks,
Richard
