On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 4:36 PM, H.J. Lu <hjl.to...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Did you check the above with x32, where Pmode != word_mode on x86_64? >>> The inner UNSPEC will be generated in SImode, but the matching pattern >>> >>> +(define_insn "*<mode>_mk" >>> + [(set (match_operand:BND 0 "register_operand" "=B") >>> + (unspec:BND >>> + [(match_operator:<bnd_ptr> 3 "bnd_mem_operator" >>> + [(unspec:<bnd_ptr> >>> + [(match_operand:<bnd_ptr> 1 "register_operand" "r") >>> + (match_operand:<bnd_ptr> 2 "address_mpx_no_base_operand" "Tb")] >>> + UNSPEC_BNDMK_ADDR)])] >>> + UNSPEC_BNDMK))] >>> + "TARGET_MPX" >>> >>> will have inner UNSPEC in DImode, due to: >>> >>> +;; Bound modes. >>> +(define_mode_iterator BND [(BND32 "!TARGET_64BIT") (BND64 "TARGET_64BIT")]) >>> + >>> +;; Pointer mode corresponding to bound mode. >>> +(define_mode_attr bnd_ptr [(BND32 "SI") (BND64 "DI")]) >> >> Currently we do not support MPX instrumentation for x32 and therefore >> I did not check these expands work correctly for x32. I believe the >> only possible problem here is BND iterator definition which does not >> care about x32. Following declaration should make everything work >> fine: >> > > Since MPX spec doesn't support x32, MPX should be disallowed > with x32. OK, please error out when this invalid combination is detected. Uros.
