--- James E Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Sanjiv Kumar Gupta wrote:
> > But I don't want to
> > allow expressions like (const:SI (plus:SI
> > symbol_ref:SI) (const_int)) in the insn.
> > How should I do that, do I need to implement
> > LEGITIMATE_CONST_P () accordingly?
>
> Try making CONST
Sanjiv Kumar Gupta wrote:
But I don't want to
allow expressions like (const:SI (plus:SI
symbol_ref:SI) (const_int)) in the insn.
How should I do that, do I need to implement
LEGITIMATE_CONST_P () accordingly?
Try making CONSTANT_ADDRESS_P reject the value.
Though it still isn't clear why you are ge
> add1 r1, segment_base, (a - 40)
> add2 r1, 40
read this as
add2 r1, the value of j
>
> Since 'a' is at the boundary of segment so 'a - 40'
> causes relocation overflow.
>
> But the same code works without -O2, because that
> generates code like
> add1 r1, segment_base,
> Sanjiv Kumar Gupta wrote:
>
> > > What is stopping the value of 'foo' itself being
> > 255?
> > Programmer will get an overflow error for that
> during linking.
>
> For my curiosity, what's the background here? Do you
> really only have 256
> bytes of storage on this system?
>
That was just an
On Mar 30, 2005, at 3:57 AM, Sanjiv Kumar Gupta wrote:
The relocation entry generated for this insn look like
symbol + addend.
The resultant value is beoyond the relocation size,
and results into relocation overflow.
Why is this not a bug in your reloc code in the assembler, OMF?
Sanjiv Kumar Gupta wrote:
> > What is stopping the value of 'foo' itself being > 255?
> Programmer will get an overflow error for that during linking.
For my curiosity, what's the background here? Do you really only have 256
bytes of storage on this system?
If you've got eight bit registers in a
Nathan Sidwell wrote:
Sanjiv Kumar Gupta wrote:
calculated by linker. Now
add r1, foo
add r1, 10
add r1, -10
are okay but add r1, foo + 10
add r1, -10 are not, since (foo + 10) may overflow during
relocation, so the value (foo + 10) && 0xff inserted
by linker is not correct.
What is st
Sanjiv Kumar Gupta wrote:
calculated by linker.
Now
add r1, foo
add r1, 10
add r1, -10
are okay but
add r1, foo + 10
add r1, -10
are not, since (foo + 10) may overflow during
relocation, so the value (foo + 10) && 0xff inserted
by linker is not correct.
What is stopping the value of
--- Nathan Sidwell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Sanjiv Kumar Gupta wrote:
>
> >
> > Thanks for a prompt reply, Nathan.
> > The add insn can take a symbol_ref, which is
> converted
> > to const_int during relocation. But I don't want
> to
> > allow expressions like (const:SI (plus:SI
> > symbol_r
Sanjiv Kumar Gupta wrote:
Thanks for a prompt reply, Nathan.
The add insn can take a symbol_ref, which is converted
to const_int during relocation. But I don't want to
allow expressions like (const:SI (plus:SI
symbol_ref:SI) (const_int)) in the insn.
How should I do that, do I need to implement
LEG
--- Nathan Sidwell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Sanjiv Kumar Gupta wrote:
>
> > add symbol_ref + const_int, r1
> >
> > The relocation entry generated for this insn look
> like
> > symbol + addend.
> >
> > The resultant value is beoyond the relocation
> size,
> > and results into relocation ove
Sanjiv Kumar Gupta wrote:
add symbol_ref + const_int, r1
The relocation entry generated for this insn look like
symbol + addend.
The resultant value is beoyond the relocation size,
and results into relocation overflow.
I guess CSE will not do this if I exclude constants
like symobol_ref + const_i
12 matches
Mail list logo
