PING.
On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 9:37 AM, Richard Sandiford
<richard.sandif...@linaro.org> wrote:
> "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
>
--
H.J.
