On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 4:45 PM, H.J. Lu <hjl.to...@gmail.com> wrote:
> PING.
Ok.
Thanks,
Richard.
> On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 9:37 AM, Richard Sandiford
> <richard.sandif...@linaro.org> wrote:
>> "H.J. Lu" <hjl.to...@gmail.com> writes:
>>> On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 7:06 AM, H.J. Lu <hjl.to...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 1:45 AM, Richard Sandiford
>>>> <richard.sandif...@linaro.org> wrote:
>>>>> "H.J. Lu" <hongjiu...@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.
>>>>
>>>
>>> It works. There are no regressions on Linux/x86-64.
>>
>> Great! I can't approve it, but FWIW, it looks good to me. The new order
>> seems to make more conceptual sense: coerce the value into the right mode,
>> then coerce it into the right type of rtx.
>>
>> Richard
>>
>
>
>
> --
> H.J.
>
