Andrew Pinski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Jun 20, 2005, at 11:28 AM, Sergei Organov wrote:
>
> > Andrew Pinski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> >> On Jun 20, 2005, at 10:54 AM, Sergei Organov wrote:
> >>
> >>> so SYMBOL_FLAG_SMALL (flags 0x6 vs 0x2) is somehow being missed when -O1
>
> >>
> >>> is turned on. Seems to be something at tree-to-RTX conversion time.
> >>> Constant folding?
> >>
> >> No, it would mean that the target says that this is not a small data.
> >> Also try it with the following code and you will see there is no
> >> difference:
>
> >>
> >> double osvf() { return 314314314; }
> >
> > There is no difference in the sense that here both -O0 and -O1 behave
> > roughly the same. So the problem is with detecting "smallness" for true
> > constants by the target, right?
>
> I think the bug is in rs6000_elf_in_small_data_p but since I have not
> debuged it yet I don't know for sure.
Well, provided that:
void
default_elf_select_rtx_section (enum machine_mode mode, rtx x,
unsigned HOST_WIDE_INT align)
{
/* ??? Handle small data here somehow. */
...
}
is still there at varasm.c:5330, I don't think it's a target bug :(
--
Sergei.
