http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49721
--- Comment #20 from H.J. Lu <hjl.tools at gmail dot com> 2011-08-03 13:56:05
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #17)
> H.J., I agree with what you write in comment 16. But unless we are sure that
> the problematic composition will never be generated (e.g. by ivopts), we
> cannot
> afford that.
I come to a conclusion that we must transform
ptr_extend:DI (plus:SI (FOO:SI) (const_int Y)))
to
(plus:DI (ptr_extend:DI (FOO:SI)) (const_int Y))
since this this how GCC supports Pmode != ptr_mode. You can
disable it and watch its fallout on HP-UX. We never run into
it for zero_extend before since x32 is the first zero_extend
target. We should extend it to zero_extend.
> The patch in comment 7 may have some snafu, but overall it looks very sane.
> It's just that a const is not being stripped. Can it be applied on top of the
I tried to strip const with
diff --git a/gcc/explow.c b/gcc/explow.c
index 069a68a..17afbbc 100644
--- a/gcc/explow.c
+++ b/gcc/explow.c
@@ -380,7 +380,7 @@ convert_memory_address_addr_space_1 (enum machine_mode
to_mode ATTRIBUTE_UNUSED,
case CONST:
temp = convert_memory_address_addr_space_1 (to_mode, XEXP (x, 0),
as, no_emit);
- return temp ? gen_rtx_CONST (to_mode, temp) : temp;
+ return temp && !REG_P (temp) ? gen_rtx_CONST (to_mode, temp) : temp;
break;
case PLUS:
and it still has massive failures:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2011-08/msg00264.html
> x32 branch? Or do I first have to revert some earlier revision?
The patch in comment 7 is for trunk.
