On 08/28/14 02:37, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
2014-08-28 1:39 GMT+04:00 Jeff Law <l...@redhat.com>:
On 08/26/14 15:42, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
diff --git a/gcc/calls.c b/gcc/calls.c
index 4285ec1..85dae6b 100644
--- a/gcc/calls.c
+++ b/gcc/calls.c
@@ -1122,6 +1122,14 @@ initialize_argument_information (int num_actuals
ATTRIBUTE_UNUSED,
call_expr_arg_iterator iter;
tree arg;
+ if (targetm.calls.implicit_pic_arg (fndecl ? fndecl : fntype))
+ {
+ gcc_assert (pic_offset_table_rtx);
+ args[j].tree_value = make_tree (ptr_type_node,
+ pic_offset_table_rtx);
+ j--;
+ }
+
if (struct_value_addr_value)
{
args[j].tree_value = struct_value_addr_value;
So why do you need this? Can't this be handled in the call/call_value
expanders or what about attaching the use to CALL_INSN_FUNCTION_USAGE from
inside ix86_expand_call? Basically I'm not seeing the need for another
target hook here. I think that would significantly simply the patch as
well.
GOT base address become an additional implicit arg with EBX relaxed
and I handled it as all other args. I can move EBX initialization into
ix86_expand_call. Would still need some hint from target to init
pic_offset_table_rtx with proper value in the beginning of function
expand.
It doesn't really need to be an argument in the traditional sense and
adding it just complicates things with a target implementation detail as
far as I can see.
I think you'll find that if you have the call pattern emit a copy from
pic_offset_table_rtx into EBX and attach of use of EBX to the call then
most of the code you've written to add the implicit argument just
disappears.
jeff
