On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 12:08 PM, Uros Bizjak <ubiz...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 6:30 PM, Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com> wrote:
>
>>> Sometimes, the compiler is really creative in inventing instructions:
>>>
>>> (insn 47 46 49 7 (set (reg:SI 68 [ D.1686 ])
>>> (subreg:SI (plus:SF (reg:SF 159 [ D.1685 ])
>>> (reg:SF 159 [ D.1685 ])) 0)) omp_atomic1.f90:17 247 {*lea_2}
>>> (expr_list:REG_DEAD (reg:SF 159 [ D.1685 ])
>>> (nil)))
>>>
>>> Really funny.
>>
>> That's the job of combiner to try all kinds of stuff and it is the
>> responsibility of the backend to reject those. I think it would be better
>> to get back to testing Pmode in the legitimate address hook, perhaps
>> allowing ptr_mode too in addition to Pmode (which for -m32/-m64 won't mean
>> any change, just for -mx32).
>
> I agree that we still need to check naked registers. However, for
> 64bit targets it is OK to pass both, SImode and DImode registers. We
> are sure that SImode values in DImode regs have top 32bits equal to 0
> in address calculations. This is not true for QImode regs (assignment
> to lowpart only). We also have to prevent non-integer registers.
>
> Attached is my final version of the patch.
>
It works fine. Can you check it in?
Thanks.
--
H.J.
