"H.J. Lu" <hjl.to...@gmail.com> writes:
> On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 7:06 AM, H.J. Lu <hjl.to...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 1:45 AM, Richard Sandiford
>> <richard.sandif...@linaro.org> wrote:
>>> "H.J. Lu" <hongjiu...@intel.com> writes:
>>>> @@ -706,7 +706,13 @@ precompute_register_parameters (int num_actuals,
>>>> struct arg_data *args,
>>>> pseudo now. TLS symbols sometimes need a call to resolve. */
>>>> if (CONSTANT_P (args[i].value)
>>>> && !targetm.legitimate_constant_p (args[i].mode, args[i].value))
>>>> - args[i].value = force_reg (args[i].mode, args[i].value);
>>>> + {
>>>> + if (GET_MODE (args[i].value) != args[i].mode)
>>>> + args[i].value = convert_to_mode (args[i].mode,
>>>> + args[i].value,
>>>> + args[i].unsignedp);
>>>> + args[i].value = force_reg (args[i].mode, args[i].value);
>>>> + }
>>>
>>> But if GET_MODE (args[i].value) != args[i].mode, then the call to
>>> targetm.legitimate_constant_p looks wrong. The mode passed in the
>>> first argument is supposed to the mode of the second argument.
>>>
>>> Is there any reason why this and the following:
>>>
>>> /* If we are to promote the function arg to a wider mode,
>>> do it now. */
>>>
>>> if (args[i].mode != TYPE_MODE (TREE_TYPE (args[i].tree_value)))
>>> args[i].value
>>> = convert_modes (args[i].mode,
>>> TYPE_MODE (TREE_TYPE (args[i].tree_value)),
>>> args[i].value, args[i].unsignedp);
>>>
>>> need to be done in the current order? I can't think of any off-hand.
>>> If not, would swapping them also fix the bug?
>>>
>>> (I can't review this either way, of course.)
>>
>> It works on the testcase. I will do a full test.
>>
>
> It works. There are no regressions on Linux/x86-64.
Great! I can't approve it, but FWIW, it looks good to me. The new order
seems to make more conceptual sense: coerce the value into the right mode,
then coerce it into the right type of rtx.
Richard
