http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47727
--- Comment #6 from rguenther at suse dot de <rguenther at suse dot de> 2011-02-14 14:21:32 UTC --- On Mon, 14 Feb 2011, hjl.tools at gmail dot com wrote: > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47727 > > --- Comment #5 from H.J. Lu <hjl.tools at gmail dot com> 2011-02-14 13:51:27 > UTC --- > Does this patch make any senses? > > diff --git a/gcc/simplify-rtx.c b/gcc/simplify-rtx.c > index ce4eab4..e7e7890 100644 > --- a/gcc/simplify-rtx.c > +++ b/gcc/simplify-rtx.c > @@ -1099,10 +1099,13 @@ simplify_unary_operation_1 (enum rtx_code code, enum > mac > hine_mode mode, rtx op) > #if defined(POINTERS_EXTEND_UNSIGNED) && !defined(HAVE_ptr_extend) > /* As we do not know which address space the pointer is refering to, > we can do this only if the target does not support different pointer > - or address modes depending on the address space. */ > + or address modes depending on the address space. Since we will > + generate new instructions, we must be currently emitting into a > + sequence. */ > if (target_default_pointer_address_modes_p () > && POINTERS_EXTEND_UNSIGNED > 0 > && mode == Pmode && GET_MODE (op) == ptr_mode > + && in_sequence_p () > && (CONSTANT_P (op) > || (GET_CODE (op) == SUBREG > && REG_P (SUBREG_REG (op)) Not really. simplify-rtx should never emit new instuctions. Probably Ulrich, when introducing address-spaces didn't properly think about this in convert_memory_address_addr_space (). Richard.
