On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 11:02 AM, Richard Henderson <r...@redhat.com> wrote: > On 07/21/2011 10:39 AM, Uros Bizjak wrote: >> IMO, it is OK to disable 64bit relocations, and that compiler is at >> fault here. Consider that something gets written to the d field (see >> example of PR49798). Reading a pointer from *m fileld in DImode, we >> will get non-zero bits in high 32bits of a pointer. We have to access >> the pointer in SImode. > > IMO this is only tangentially related to the compiler at all. > I think disabling 64bit relocations is unnecessarily awkward > for assembly programmers. > > Consider when one wants to build jump tables. You either have to > have a register available for zero-extension, or do the .word x, 0 > thing. Which I think is being silly and arbitrary; the assembler > damned well knows what I want when I write .quad x. >
I withdrew this patch. Assembler will accept ".quad foo" and zero-extend it to 8 byte. -- H.J.
