Re: [PATCH] report message for operator %a on unaddressible exp

Hi! On Thu, May 16, 2024 at 02:56:49PM +0800, Jiufu Guo wrote: > Jiufu Guo writes: > > Segher Boessenkool writes: > >> On Tue, May 14, 2024 at 05:53:56PM +0800, Jiufu Guo wrote: > >>> Thanks so much for your great review! > >>> Reference other messages, I'm wondering "invalid %%a value" may be

Re: [PATCH] report message for operator %a on unaddressible exp

Hi, Jiufu Guo writes: > Hi, > > Segher Boessenkool writes: > >> On Tue, May 14, 2024 at 05:53:56PM +0800, Jiufu Guo wrote: >>> Thanks so much for your great review! >>> Reference other messages, I'm wondering "invalid %%a value" may be >>> acceptable, or "invalid %%a address expression in

Re: [PATCH] report message for operator %a on unaddressible exp

Hi, Segher Boessenkool writes: > On Tue, May 14, 2024 at 05:53:56PM +0800, Jiufu Guo wrote: >> Thanks so much for your great review! >> Reference other messages, I'm wondering "invalid %%a value" may be >> acceptable, or "invalid %%a address expression in TOC" maybe better. > > "%%a requires

Re: [PATCH] report message for operator %a on unaddressible exp

Hi, Segher Boessenkool writes: > Oh, btw: > > On Tue, May 14, 2024 at 11:00:38AM +0800, Jiufu Guo wrote: >> >> --- a/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.cc >> >> +++ b/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.cc >> >> @@ -14659,6 +14659,12 @@ print_operand_address (FILE *file, rtx x) >> >>else if (SYMBOL_REF_P (x) ||

Re: [PATCH] report message for operator %a on unaddressible exp

On Tue, May 14, 2024 at 05:53:56PM +0800, Jiufu Guo wrote: > Thanks so much for your great review! > Reference other messages, I'm wondering "invalid %%a value" may be > acceptable, or "invalid %%a address expression in TOC" maybe better. "%%a requires a memory operand"? Maybe even print out the

Re: [PATCH] report message for operator %a on unaddressible exp

Hi, Segher Boessenkool writes: > On Tue, May 14, 2024 at 11:00:38AM +0800, Jiufu Guo wrote: >> >> diff --git a/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.cc b/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.cc >> >> index 117999613d8..50943d76f79 100644 >> >> --- a/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.cc >> >> +++ b/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.cc >>

Re: [PATCH] report message for operator %a on unaddressible exp

Oh, btw: On Tue, May 14, 2024 at 11:00:38AM +0800, Jiufu Guo wrote: > >> --- a/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.cc > >> +++ b/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.cc > >> @@ -14659,6 +14659,12 @@ print_operand_address (FILE *file, rtx x) > >>else if (SYMBOL_REF_P (x) || GET_CODE (x) == CONST > >> ||

Re: [PATCH] report message for operator %a on unaddressible exp

On Tue, May 14, 2024 at 11:00:38AM +0800, Jiufu Guo wrote: > >> diff --git a/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.cc b/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.cc > >> index 117999613d8..50943d76f79 100644 > >> --- a/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.cc > >> +++ b/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.cc > >> @@ -14659,6 +14659,12 @@

Re: [PATCH] report message for operator %a on unaddressible exp

Hi, "Kewen.Lin" writes: > Hi, > > on 2024/5/14 11:00, Jiufu Guo wrote: >> Hi, >> >> Thanks a lot for your helpful review! >> >> "Kewen.Lin" writes: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> on 2024/5/13 10:57, Jiufu Guo wrote: Hi, For PR96866, when gcc print asm code for modifier "%a" which

Re: [PATCH] report message for operator %a on unaddressible exp

Hi, on 2024/5/14 11:00, Jiufu Guo wrote: > Hi, > > Thanks a lot for your helpful review! > > "Kewen.Lin" writes: > >> Hi, >> >> on 2024/5/13 10:57, Jiufu Guo wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> For PR96866, when gcc print asm code for modifier "%a" which requires >>> an address operand, while the operand

Re: [PATCH] report message for operator %a on unaddressible exp

Hi, Thanks a lot for your helpful review! "Kewen.Lin" writes: > Hi, > > on 2024/5/13 10:57, Jiufu Guo wrote: >> Hi, >> >> For PR96866, when gcc print asm code for modifier "%a" which requires >> an address operand, while the operand is with the constraint "X" which >> allow non-address form.

Re: [PATCH] report message for operator %a on unaddressible exp

Hi, Thanks for your helpful comments! Segher Boessenkool writes: > Hi! > > On Mon, May 13, 2024 at 10:57:12AM +0800, Jiufu Guo wrote: >> For PR96866, when gcc print asm code for modifier "%a" which requires >> an address operand, > > It requires a *memory* operand, and it outputs its address.

Re: [PATCH] report message for operator %a on unaddressible exp

Hi, on 2024/5/13 10:57, Jiufu Guo wrote: > Hi, > > For PR96866, when gcc print asm code for modifier "%a" which requires > an address operand, while the operand is with the constraint "X" which > allow non-address form. An error message would be reported to indicate > the invalid asm operands.

Re: [PATCH] report message for operator %a on unaddressible exp

Hi! On Mon, May 13, 2024 at 10:57:12AM +0800, Jiufu Guo wrote: > For PR96866, when gcc print asm code for modifier "%a" which requires > an address operand, It requires a *memory* operand, and it outputs its address. This is a generic modifier btw (not rs6000). > while the operand is with the

[PATCH] report message for operator %a on unaddressible exp

Hi, For PR96866, when gcc print asm code for modifier "%a" which requires an address operand, while the operand is with the constraint "X" which allow non-address form. An error message would be reported to indicate the invalid asm operands. Bootstrap pass on ppc64{,le}. Is this ok for trunk?