On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 5:05 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>>> (define_insn "*call"
>>> - [(call (mem:QI (match_operand:P 0 "call_insn_operand" "zw"))
>>> + [(call (mem:QI (match_operand:C 0 "call_insn_operand" "zw"))
>>> (match_operand 1 "" ""))]
>>> - "!SIBLING_CALL_P (insn)
On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 1:58 PM, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 5:03 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>
>> (define_insn "*call"
>> - [(call (mem:QI (match_operand:P 0 "call_insn_operand" "zw"))
>> + [(call (mem:QI (match_operand:C 0 "call_insn_operand" "zw"))
>> (match_ope
On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 5:03 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> (define_insn "*call"
> - [(call (mem:QI (match_operand:P 0 "call_insn_operand" "zw"))
> + [(call (mem:QI (match_operand:C 0 "call_insn_operand" "zw"))
> (match_operand 1 "" ""))]
> - "!SIBLING_CALL_P (insn)"
> +
On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 1:28 AM, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 9:57 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
(define_insn "*call"
- [(call (mem:QI (match_operand:P 0 "call_insn_operand" "zw"))
+ [(call (mem:QI (match_operand:C 0 "call_insn_operand" "zw"))
(match_operand 1 ""
On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 11:07 AM, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> Ah, I vaguely remember that indirect call/jmp is invalid on X32 for
This should read "... indirect call/jmp FROM MEMORY is invalid on X32
...". It looks I've had too much morning coffee already ;)
Uros.
On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 11:07 AM, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 10:28 AM, Uros Bizjak wrote:
>
>> + if (TARGET_X32)
>> + operands[0] = convert_memory_address (word_mode, operands[0]);
>>
>> This addition to indirect_jump and tablejump should be the only
>> change, needed in i386.
On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 10:28 AM, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> + if (TARGET_X32)
> + operands[0] = convert_memory_address (word_mode, operands[0]);
>
> This addition to indirect_jump and tablejump should be the only
> change, needed in i386.md now. Please write the condition
>
> if (Pmode != word_mode
On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 9:57 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>>> (define_insn "*call"
>>> - [(call (mem:QI (match_operand:P 0 "call_insn_operand" "zw"))
>>> + [(call (mem:QI (match_operand:C 0 "call_insn_operand" "zw"))
>>> (match_operand 1 "" ""))]
>>> - "!SIBLING_CALL_P (insn)"
>>> + "!SIBLING_CAL
On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 11:47 AM, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On 03/06/12 11:10, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> (define_insn "*call"
>> - [(call (mem:QI (match_operand:P 0 "call_insn_operand" "zw"))
>> + [(call (mem:QI (match_operand:C 0 "call_insn_operand" "zw"))
>> (match_operand 1 "" ""))]
>> - "!S
On 03/06/12 11:10, H.J. Lu wrote:
> (define_insn "*call"
> - [(call (mem:QI (match_operand:P 0 "call_insn_operand" "zw"))
> + [(call (mem:QI (match_operand:C 0 "call_insn_operand" "zw"))
>(match_operand 1 "" ""))]
> - "!SIBLING_CALL_P (insn)"
> + "!SIBLING_CALL_P (insn)
> + && (GET_C
On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 8:10 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 7:37 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 9:11 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>>> On Sun, Mar 4, 2012 at 11:47 PM, Uros Bizjak wrote:
On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 4:53 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> and compiler does generate th
On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 7:37 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 9:11 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> On Sun, Mar 4, 2012 at 11:47 PM, Uros Bizjak wrote:
>>> On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 4:53 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>>>
and compiler does generate the same output. i386.c also has
xasm =
12 matches
Mail list logo