Yes I guess otherwise you could never produce a complex address like that. Actually I think I remember that day that I found that C explicitly leaves it undefined and to the machine. Thanks Hendrik
On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 1:40 PM, Oleg Endo <oleg.e...@t-online.de> wrote: > On Tue, 2013-07-09 at 09:37 -0700, Hendrik Greving wrote: >> On a machine with ABI ILP32LL64: >> >> (insn 123 122 124 (nil) (set (reg:SI 392) >> (mem:SI (plus:SI (reg/v:SI 386) >> (reg/v:SI 349)) [0 sec 0 space 0, cmsmode 0 S4 A32])) -1 >> (nil) >> (nil)) >> >> If we support legitimate memory addresses like [r1+r2] (e.g. indexed >> addresses), can the above RTL match such a load? > > On 32 bit address machines it should match. > >> I am asking because >> of overflows, I am not sure how that part is defined, and where the >> Spec is. What do I need to check in the backend for such a definition? >> Is this POINTER_SIZE? E.g. what if the machine supports > 32 bits, who >> is responsible to make sure that there is no overflow > 32 bits in >> this case? Compiler? Assembler? Or even the user? > > AFAIK overflow is undefined and thus anything can happen. Induction > variable and loop optimizations may produce interesting things if > addresses overflow. For example, see > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55190 > > Cheers, > Oleg >
