On Fri, 14 Aug 2026 04:55:04 +0900, Jeffrey Law wrote: > > > > On 7/20/2026 7:36 AM, Yoshinori Sato wrote: > > Hello, > > > > This is v3 of the Renesas RX FDPIC support patch. > > > > This update cleans up and refactors the PIC/FDPIC operand legitimization > > and PC-relative symbol addressing based on feedback and updates. > > > > Summary of changes: > > 1. PIC / FDPIC & PC-Relative Refactoring > > - Unified PIC operand legitimization helper functions by replacing > > rx_mov_pic_operands and rx_maybe_pidify_operand with > > rx_maybe_legitimize_pi_operand and rx_expand_pcrel[cite: 1]. > > - Improved address legitimacy checks (rx_is_legitimate_address) and > > local > > read-only symbol handling (rx_is_local_readonly_data_p) for > > PC-relative > > addressing[cite: 1]. > > - Updated PIC offset table register tracking in prologue/epilogue and > > call > > patterns (clobbering/using PIC_REG where appropriate, and defining > > EPILOGUE_USES for FDPIC)[cite: 1]. > > - Standardized assembly output printing for GOT/GOTOFF/PLT unspecs using > > a new helper function (rx_print_operand_with_attrib)[cite: 1]. > > > > 2. General Cleanups & Fixes > > - Cleaned up predicate definitions in predicates.md and header > > prototypes[cite: 1]. > > - Improved GNU coding style compliance and comment formatting[cite: 1]. > > > > Changes since v2: > > - Refactored PIC/FDPIC helper functions and PC-relative address loading. > > - Cleaned up assembly output for GOT/GOTOFF/PLT symbol attributes. > > - (LRA support and DImode arithmetic expansion were split out into separate > > patches). > > > > Testing: > > - Confirmed no unexpected failures (no regressions) in `make check`. > > - Verified that BusyBox built with this compiler runs correctly on a real > > Renesas RX62N MCU board. > > > > Specification reference: > > https://gitlab.com/yoshinori.sato/gcc/-/wikis/RX-FDPIC > > > > Thanks, > > Yoshinori Sato > > > > Yoshinori Sato (4): > > RX: FDPIC support - machine description > > RX: FDPIC support - helper functions > > RX: FDPIC support - headers > > RX: shared libgcc support > So I applied this series in my tester and fired up a test run just to > see how it'd respond. This series triggers 631 regression failures. > So there's clearly still work to do. > > As a sample: > > > rx-sim: gcc: gcc.c-torture/compile/981006-1.c -O0 (test for excess > errors) > rx-sim: gcc: gcc.c-torture/compile/pr100241-1.c -O0 (test for > excess errors) > rx-sim: gcc: gcc.c-torture/compile/pr65153.c -O1 (test for excess errors) > rx-sim: gcc: gcc.c-torture/compile/pr69102.c -O0 (test for excess errors) > [ ... ] > > Odds are there's just a few issues causing the vast majority of the > failures. Regardless I would suggest you run the testsuite on your > submissions to verify they don't cause regressions. > > jeff
OK. It didn't appear that any problems occurred when I tested it, but it seems I overlooked something. I will fix it. -- Yosinori Sato
