On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 10:17:00AM -0700, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 10:08 AM, Alexander Monakov
> wrote:
> >> >> Perhaps add a comment that GOT slots are 64-bit on x32?
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > Good idea. I will update my patch.
> >> >
> >>
> >> How about this?
> >>
> >>
> >> diff --
On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 10:08 AM, Alexander Monakov wrote:
>> >> Perhaps add a comment that GOT slots are 64-bit on x32?
>> >>
>> >
>> > Good idea. I will update my patch.
>> >
>>
>> How about this?
>>
>>
>> diff --git a/gcc/config/i386/i386.c b/gcc/config/i386/i386.c
>> index bf8a21d..216dee6 10
> >> Perhaps add a comment that GOT slots are 64-bit on x32?
> >>
> >
> > Good idea. I will update my patch.
> >
>
> How about this?
>
>
> diff --git a/gcc/config/i386/i386.c b/gcc/config/i386/i386.c
> index bf8a21d..216dee6 100644
> --- a/gcc/config/i386/i386.c
> +++ b/gcc/config/i386/i386.c
>
On Sun, Aug 16, 2015 at 12:39 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 16, 2015 at 12:24 PM, Alexander Monakov
> wrote:
>
>>> + if (!TARGET_64BIT
>>> + || (ix86_cmodel == CM_LARGE_PIC
>>> + && DEFAULT_ABI != MS_ABI))
>>> + {
>>> + use_r
On Sun, Aug 16, 2015 at 12:24 PM, Alexander Monakov wrote:
> On Sun, 16 Aug 2015, H.J. Lu wrote:
>
>> prepare_call_address in calls.c is the wrong place to handle -fno-plt.
>> We shoudn't force function address into register and hope that load
>> function address via GOT and indirect call via regi
On Sun, 16 Aug 2015, H.J. Lu wrote:
> prepare_call_address in calls.c is the wrong place to handle -fno-plt.
> We shoudn't force function address into register and hope that load
> function address via GOT and indirect call via register will be folded
> into indirect call via GOT, which doesn't al
prepare_call_address in calls.c is the wrong place to handle -fno-plt.
We shoudn't force function address into register and hope that load
function address via GOT and indirect call via register will be folded
into indirect call via GOT, which doesn't always happen. Allso non-PIC
case can only be
