Message ID | 20110611154235.GA19926@intel.com |
---|---|
State | New |
Headers | show |
"H.J. Lu" <hongjiu.lu@intel.com> writes: > @@ -706,7 +706,13 @@ precompute_register_parameters (int num_actuals, struct arg_data *args, > pseudo now. TLS symbols sometimes need a call to resolve. */ > if (CONSTANT_P (args[i].value) > && !targetm.legitimate_constant_p (args[i].mode, args[i].value)) > - args[i].value = force_reg (args[i].mode, args[i].value); > + { > + if (GET_MODE (args[i].value) != args[i].mode) > + args[i].value = convert_to_mode (args[i].mode, > + args[i].value, > + args[i].unsignedp); > + args[i].value = force_reg (args[i].mode, args[i].value); > + } But if GET_MODE (args[i].value) != args[i].mode, then the call to targetm.legitimate_constant_p looks wrong. The mode passed in the first argument is supposed to the mode of the second argument. Is there any reason why this and the following: /* If we are to promote the function arg to a wider mode, do it now. */ if (args[i].mode != TYPE_MODE (TREE_TYPE (args[i].tree_value))) args[i].value = convert_modes (args[i].mode, TYPE_MODE (TREE_TYPE (args[i].tree_value)), args[i].value, args[i].unsignedp); need to be done in the current order? I can't think of any off-hand. If not, would swapping them also fix the bug? (I can't review this either way, of course.) Richard
On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 1:45 AM, Richard Sandiford <richard.sandiford@linaro.org> wrote: > "H.J. Lu" <hongjiu.lu@intel.com> writes: >> @@ -706,7 +706,13 @@ precompute_register_parameters (int num_actuals, struct arg_data *args, >> pseudo now. TLS symbols sometimes need a call to resolve. */ >> if (CONSTANT_P (args[i].value) >> && !targetm.legitimate_constant_p (args[i].mode, args[i].value)) >> - args[i].value = force_reg (args[i].mode, args[i].value); >> + { >> + if (GET_MODE (args[i].value) != args[i].mode) >> + args[i].value = convert_to_mode (args[i].mode, >> + args[i].value, >> + args[i].unsignedp); >> + args[i].value = force_reg (args[i].mode, args[i].value); >> + } > > But if GET_MODE (args[i].value) != args[i].mode, then the call to > targetm.legitimate_constant_p looks wrong. The mode passed in the > first argument is supposed to the mode of the second argument. > > Is there any reason why this and the following: > > /* If we are to promote the function arg to a wider mode, > do it now. */ > > if (args[i].mode != TYPE_MODE (TREE_TYPE (args[i].tree_value))) > args[i].value > = convert_modes (args[i].mode, > TYPE_MODE (TREE_TYPE (args[i].tree_value)), > args[i].value, args[i].unsignedp); > > need to be done in the current order? I can't think of any off-hand. > If not, would swapping them also fix the bug? > > (I can't review this either way, of course.) It works on the testcase. I will do a full test. Thanks.
diff --git a/gcc/calls.c b/gcc/calls.c index feb98d2..de98267 100644 --- a/gcc/calls.c +++ b/gcc/calls.c @@ -706,7 +706,13 @@ precompute_register_parameters (int num_actuals, struct arg_data *args, pseudo now. TLS symbols sometimes need a call to resolve. */ if (CONSTANT_P (args[i].value) && !targetm.legitimate_constant_p (args[i].mode, args[i].value)) - args[i].value = force_reg (args[i].mode, args[i].value); + { + if (GET_MODE (args[i].value) != args[i].mode) + args[i].value = convert_to_mode (args[i].mode, + args[i].value, + args[i].unsignedp); + args[i].value = force_reg (args[i].mode, args[i].value); + } /* If we are to promote the function arg to a wider mode, do it now. */