On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 2:00 PM, Uros Bizjak <ubiz...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 10:22 PM, H.J. Lu <hjl.to...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> Expand generates:
>>>
>>> (insn 8 6 9 (set (reg:SI 68)
>>> (symbol_ref:SI ("xxxx") [flags 0x40] <var_decl 0x7fccc360b140
>>> xxxx>)) p
>>> r49798.c:12 -1
>>> (nil))
>>>
>>> (insn 9 8 10 (set (reg:DI 67)
>>> (zero_extend:DI (reg:SI 68))) pr49798.c:12 -1
>>> (nil))
>>>
>>> I don't know if this is OK to be transformed to DImode load.
>>>
>>
>> I believe it is valid.
>
> How is this situation handled in other targets? I don't see that any
> of other ptr_mode != Pmode targets define TARGET_ASM_INTEGER in the
> way you propose.
>
Other ptr_mode != Pmode targets don't run into this issue since they
have different instruction sets. X32 may be the first (only) target for
this problem.
--
H.J.
