On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 7:24 AM, Alan Modra wrote:
> Revised patch, supporting linker that aligns the toc base.
>
> This fixes a thinko in offsettable_ok_by_alignment. It's not the
> absolute placement that matters, but the toc-pointer relative offset.
> So alignment of r2 also needs to be taken
Revised patch, supporting linker that aligns the toc base.
This fixes a thinko in offsettable_ok_by_alignment. It's not the
absolute placement that matters, but the toc-pointer relative offset.
So alignment of r2 also needs to be taken into account.
Changing offsettable_ok_by_alignment has a rip
On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 01:11:41PM -0400, David Edelsohn wrote:
> > @@ -6510,6 +6518,8 @@ offsettable_ok_by_alignment (rtx op, HOST_WIDE_INT
> > return false;
> >
> >dsize = GET_MODE_SIZE (mode);
> > + if (dsize > POWERPC64_TOC_POINTER_ALIGNMENT)
> > +return false;
>
> Why do you imm
On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 9:53 AM, Alan Modra wrote:
> This fixes a thinko in offsettable_ok_by_alignment. It's not the
> absolute placement that matters, but the toc-pointer relative offset.
> So alignment of r2 also needs to be taken into account.
>
> Bootstrapped and regression tested powerpc64-
On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 11:23:17PM +0930, Alan Modra wrote:
> This fixes a thinko in offsettable_ok_by_alignment. It's not the
> absolute placement that matters, but the toc-pointer relative offset.
> So alignment of r2 also needs to be taken into account.
>
> Bootstrapped and regression tested p
This fixes a thinko in offsettable_ok_by_alignment. It's not the
absolute placement that matters, but the toc-pointer relative offset.
So alignment of r2 also needs to be taken into account.
Bootstrapped and regression tested powerpc64-linux. OK for mainline
and gcc-5 branch? Without the dead c
