> Am 09.11.2018 um 18:30 schrieb Ulrich Weigand <uweig...@de.ibm.com>:
>
> Ilya Leoshkevich wrote:
>
>> gcc_assert (GET_CODE (x) != SYMBOL_REF
>> - || !CONSTANT_POOL_ADDRESS_P (x));
>> + || !CONSTANT_POOL_ADDRESS_P (x)
>> + || s390_symbol_relative_long_p (x));
>
> Hmm, it's a bit weird that this routine now uses a different check
> than the other two. It would look more straightforward for
> find_constant_pool_ref to use the same s390_safe_relative_long_p
> check as the others.
>
> (This would then also make s390_symbol_relative_long_p redundant.)
Ok, sounds good.
> If we do that, it might even make sense to pull the
> s390_safe_relative_long_p check up into the callers:
>
> E.g. in s390_mainpool_finish, replace
>
> /* Replace all literal pool references. */
>
> for (rtx_insn *insn = get_insns (); insn; insn = NEXT_INSN (insn))
> {
> if (NONJUMP_INSN_P (insn) || CALL_P (insn))
> {
>
> with
>
> if ((NONJUMP_INSN_P (insn) || CALL_P (insn))
> && !s390_safe_relative_long_p (insn))
>
> (This last change is just a suggestion, only if it makes the
> overall code simpler and more readable.)
I would have to do that in 8 places (4 for find/replace and 4 for
annotate), so it’s probably better to keep the current 3 checks.
