Hello!
As I noticed are some parts in i386.md existing for just for 32-bit,
but will be used in 64-bit, too.
For example:
(define_split
[(set (match_operand:XF 0 "push_operand" "")
(float_extend:XF (match_operand:SF 1 "fp_register_operand" "")))]
""
[(set (reg:SI SP_REG) (plus:SI (reg:SI SP_REG) (match_dup 2)))
(set (mem:XF (reg:SI SP_REG)) (float_extend:XF (match_dup 1)))]
"operands[2] = GEN_INT (TARGET_128BIT_LONG_DOUBLE ? -16 : -12);")
(define_split
[(set (match_operand:XF 0 "push_operand" "")
(float_extend:XF (match_operand:SF 1 "fp_register_operand" "")))]
"TARGET_64BIT"
[(set (reg:DI SP_REG) (plus:DI (reg:DI SP_REG) (match_dup 2)))
(set (mem:DF (reg:DI SP_REG)) (float_extend:XF (match_dup 1)))]
"operands[2] = GEN_INT (TARGET_128BIT_LONG_DOUBLE ? -16 : -12);")
The first section will be used on 32-bit and on 64-bit, the second
just for 64-bit. Isn't this wrong? Should in the first define_split
not explicit said "!TARGET_64BIT"?
There some other places where this happens too, and for the ESP
adjustments there seems to be present just the 32-bit version?.
This is wrong, the first splitter should have !TARGET_64BIT. Even better
approach would be to copy what MIPS does:
;; This mode iterator allows :P to be used for patterns that operate on
;; pointer-sized quantities. Exactly one of the two alternatives will
match.
(define_mode_iterator P [(SI "Pmode == SImode") (DI "Pmode == DImode")])
and use P iterator instead of SI and DI in one macroized pattern that
substitutes both splitters.
Uros.
