On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 10:51 AM, Andrew Pinski <pins...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 10:46 AM, Sriraman Tallam <tmsri...@google.com> wrote: >> On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 10:42 AM, Xinliang David Li <davi...@google.com> >> wrote: >>> Why removing the tree_code check? >> >> The actual problem happens because STRING_CSTs (end up in .lrodata) >> are not set a far address as they dont match the VAR_DECL check here. >> Futher, "ix86_in_large_data_p" call has the TREE_CODE check to do the >> right thing so this seems unnecessary & buggy here. > > I think he is asking because TREE_STATIC (decl) || DECL_EXTERNAL > (decl) might be an issue for STRING_CSTs.
TREE_STATIC is true for STRING_CSTs and DECL_EXTERNAL false, that looks ok. Thanks Sri > > Thanks, > Andrew > > >> >> Thanks >> Sri >> >>> >>> David >>> >>> On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 10:35 AM, Sriraman Tallam <tmsri...@google.com> >>> wrote: >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> This patch is under review for trunk GCC : >>>> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-10/msg01638.html. >>>> >>>> In the mean time, is this ok for google/gcc-4_9 branch? Without >>>> this, -mcmodel=medium is unusable if .lrodata goes beyond the 2G >>>> boundary. >>>> >>>> Thanks >>>> Sri
