On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 6:11 AM, Uros Bizjak <ubiz...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 2:59 PM, H.J. Lu <hjl.to...@gmail.com> wrote: >> X32 doesn't support indirect branch via 32-bit memory slot since >> indirect branch will load 64-bit address from 64-bit memory slot. >> Since x32 GOT slot is 64-bit, we should allow indirect branch via GOT >> slot for x32. >> >> I am testing it on x32. OK for master if there is no regression? >> >> Thanks. >> >> >> H.J. >> -- >> gcc/ >> >> PR target/66232 >> * config/i386/constraints.md (Bg): Add a constraint for x32 >> call and sibcall memory operand. >> * config/i386/i386.md (*call_x32): New pattern. >> (*sibcall_x32): Likewise. >> (*call_value_x32): Likewise. >> (*sibcall_value_x32): Likewise. >> * config/i386/predicates.md (x32_sibcall_memory_operand): New >> predicate. >> (x32_call_insn_operand): Likewise. >> (x32_sibcall_insn_operand): Likewise. >> >> gcc/testsuite/ >> >> PR target/66232 >> * gcc.target/i386/pr66232-1.c: New test. >> * gcc.target/i386/pr66232-2.c: Likewise. >> * gcc.target/i386/pr66232-3.c: Likewise. >> * gcc.target/i386/pr66232-4.c: Likewise. > > OK. > > maybe you should use match_code some more in x32_sibcall_memory_operand, e.g. > > (match_code "constant" "0") > (match_code "unspec" "00") > > But it is up to you, since XINT doesn't fit in this scheme... >
>> >> +;; Return true if OP is a memory operand that can be used in x32 calls >> +;; and sibcalls. Only th 64-bit GOT slot is allowed. >> +(define_predicate "x32_sibcall_memory_operand" >> + (and (match_operand 0 "memory_operand") >> + (match_test "CONSTANT_P (XEXP (op, 0))") >> + (match_test "GET_CODE (XEXP (XEXP (op, 0), 0)) == UNSPEC") >> + (match_test "XINT (XEXP (XEXP (op, 0), 0), 1) == UNSPEC_GOTPCREL"))) >> + Since "match_code" doesn't support "constant" neither #define CONSTANT_P(X) \ (GET_RTX_CLASS (GET_CODE (X)) == RTX_CONST_OBJ) I will keep it asis. Thanks. -- H.J.
