On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 10:17:00AM -0700, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 10:08 AM, Alexander Monakov
> wrote:
> >> >> Perhaps add a comment that GOT slots are 64-bit on x32?
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > Good idea. I will update my patch.
> >> >
> >>
> >> How about this?
> >>
> >>
> >> diff --
On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 10:08 AM, Alexander Monakov wrote:
>> >> Perhaps add a comment that GOT slots are 64-bit on x32?
>> >>
>> >
>> > Good idea. I will update my patch.
>> >
>>
>> How about this?
>>
>>
>> diff --git a/gcc/config/i386/i386.c b/gcc/config/i386/i386.c
>> index bf8a21d..216dee6 10
> >> Perhaps add a comment that GOT slots are 64-bit on x32?
> >>
> >
> > Good idea. I will update my patch.
> >
>
> How about this?
>
>
> diff --git a/gcc/config/i386/i386.c b/gcc/config/i386/i386.c
> index bf8a21d..216dee6 100644
> --- a/gcc/config/i386/i386.c
> +++ b/gcc/config/i386/i386.c
>
On Sun, Aug 16, 2015 at 12:39 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 16, 2015 at 12:24 PM, Alexander Monakov
> wrote:
>
>>> + if (!TARGET_64BIT
>>> + || (ix86_cmodel == CM_LARGE_PIC
>>> + && DEFAULT_ABI != MS_ABI))
>>> + {
>>> + use_r
On Sun, Aug 16, 2015 at 12:24 PM, Alexander Monakov wrote:
> On Sun, 16 Aug 2015, H.J. Lu wrote:
>
>> prepare_call_address in calls.c is the wrong place to handle -fno-plt.
>> We shoudn't force function address into register and hope that load
>> function address via GOT and indirect call via regi
On Sun, 16 Aug 2015, H.J. Lu wrote:
> prepare_call_address in calls.c is the wrong place to handle -fno-plt.
> We shoudn't force function address into register and hope that load
> function address via GOT and indirect call via register will be folded
> into indirect call via GOT, which doesn't al
