http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49860
--- Comment #4 from H.J. Lu <hjl.tools at gmail dot com> 2011-07-27 12:56:01 UTC --- (In reply to comment #3) > (In reply to comment #2) > > > > Assembler should accept R_X86_64_64 and zero-extend it to 8 bytes. It is > > > the > > > same issue as [1]. > > > > > > [1] http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-07/msg01825.html > > > > X32 is 32bit environment. For this testcase, x32 should generate > > very similar code to ia32, except for additional 8 registers. In > > another word, if a memory operand is OK for ia32, it must be OK > > for x32. > > Can you prevent x32 to generate DImode symbols? No, since Pmode is still in > DImode and DImode addresses are *valid* addresses. For the testcase from PR, > expand generates SImode symbol that is later extended to DImode and handled > through movabs. This testcase is about valid address for x86_64_immediate_operand and x86_64_zext_immediate_operand. If it is valid for TARGET_32BIT, it should be valid for TARGET_X32. > Your patch just papers over this fact. Assembler should put correctly > zero-extended symbol at the relocation site. Assembler is done on purpose to catch problems like this.
