Re: PATCH [6/n] X32: Supprot 32bit address

2011-07-20 Thread H.J. Lu
On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 12:08 PM, Uros Bizjak ubiz...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 6:30 PM, Jakub Jelinek ja...@redhat.com wrote: Sometimes, the compiler is really creative in inventing instructions: (insn 47 46 49 7 (set (reg:SI 68 [ D.1686 ])         (subreg:SI (plus:SF (reg:SF

Re: PATCH [6/n] X32: Supprot 32bit address

2011-07-20 Thread Uros Bizjak
On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 2:54 PM, H.J. Lu hjl.to...@gmail.com wrote: Sometimes, the compiler is really creative in inventing instructions: (insn 47 46 49 7 (set (reg:SI 68 [ D.1686 ])         (subreg:SI (plus:SF (reg:SF 159 [ D.1685 ])                 (reg:SF 159 [ D.1685 ])) 0))

Re: PATCH [6/n] X32: Supprot 32bit address

2011-07-19 Thread H.J. Lu
On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 2:16 AM, Uros Bizjak ubiz...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 10:46 AM, Richard Guenther richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote: TARGET_MEM_REF only works on ptr_mode.   This patch allows 32bit address in x32 mode.  OK for trunk? Do you perhaps have a testcase to

Re: PATCH [6/n] X32: Supprot 32bit address

2011-07-19 Thread Uros Bizjak
On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 3:47 PM, H.J. Lu hjl.to...@gmail.com wrote: Attached patch simply removes these two checks, as it seems they are not needed. This also follows how other Pmode != ptr_mode targets. 2011-07-19  Uros Bizjak  ubiz...@gmail.com        PR target/49780        *

Re: PATCH [6/n] X32: Supprot 32bit address

2011-07-19 Thread H.J. Lu
On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 7:04 AM, Uros Bizjak ubiz...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 3:47 PM, H.J. Lu hjl.to...@gmail.com wrote: Attached patch simply removes these two checks, as it seems they are not needed. This also follows how other Pmode != ptr_mode targets. 2011-07-19  Uros

Re: PATCH [6/n] X32: Supprot 32bit address

2011-07-19 Thread Uros Bizjak
On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 4:42 PM, H.J. Lu hjl.to...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 7:04 AM, Uros Bizjak ubiz...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 3:47 PM, H.J. Lu hjl.to...@gmail.com wrote: Attached patch simply removes these two checks, as it seems they are not needed. This

Re: PATCH [6/n] X32: Supprot 32bit address

2011-07-19 Thread Jakub Jelinek
On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 06:26:33PM +0200, Uros Bizjak wrote: Sometimes, the compiler is really creative in inventing instructions: (insn 47 46 49 7 (set (reg:SI 68 [ D.1686 ]) (subreg:SI (plus:SF (reg:SF 159 [ D.1685 ]) (reg:SF 159 [ D.1685 ])) 0)) omp_atomic1.f90:17

Re: PATCH [6/n] X32: Supprot 32bit address

2011-07-19 Thread Uros Bizjak
On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 6:30 PM, Jakub Jelinek ja...@redhat.com wrote: On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 06:26:33PM +0200, Uros Bizjak wrote: Sometimes, the compiler is really creative in inventing instructions: (insn 47 46 49 7 (set (reg:SI 68 [ D.1686 ])         (subreg:SI (plus:SF (reg:SF 159 [

Re: PATCH [6/n] X32: Supprot 32bit address

2011-07-19 Thread Uros Bizjak
On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 6:37 PM, Uros Bizjak ubiz...@gmail.com wrote: Sometimes, the compiler is really creative in inventing instructions: (insn 47 46 49 7 (set (reg:SI 68 [ D.1686 ])         (subreg:SI (plus:SF (reg:SF 159 [ D.1685 ])                 (reg:SF 159 [ D.1685 ])) 0))

Re: PATCH [6/n] X32: Supprot 32bit address

2011-07-19 Thread Uros Bizjak
On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 7:33 PM, Uros Bizjak ubiz...@gmail.com wrote: Sometimes, the compiler is really creative in inventing instructions: (insn 47 46 49 7 (set (reg:SI 68 [ D.1686 ])         (subreg:SI (plus:SF (reg:SF 159 [ D.1685 ])                 (reg:SF 159 [ D.1685 ])) 0))

Re: PATCH [6/n] X32: Supprot 32bit address

2011-07-19 Thread H.J. Lu
On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 10:33 AM, Uros Bizjak ubiz...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 6:37 PM, Uros Bizjak ubiz...@gmail.com wrote: Sometimes, the compiler is really creative in inventing instructions: (insn 47 46 49 7 (set (reg:SI 68 [ D.1686 ])         (subreg:SI (plus:SF (reg:SF

Re: PATCH [6/n] X32: Supprot 32bit address

2011-07-19 Thread H.J. Lu
On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 10:49 AM, H.J. Lu hjl.to...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 10:33 AM, Uros Bizjak ubiz...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 6:37 PM, Uros Bizjak ubiz...@gmail.com wrote: Sometimes, the compiler is really creative in inventing instructions: (insn 47 46

Re: PATCH [6/n] X32: Supprot 32bit address

2011-07-19 Thread Uros Bizjak
On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 6:30 PM, Jakub Jelinek ja...@redhat.com wrote: Sometimes, the compiler is really creative in inventing instructions: (insn 47 46 49 7 (set (reg:SI 68 [ D.1686 ])         (subreg:SI (plus:SF (reg:SF 159 [ D.1685 ])                 (reg:SF 159 [ D.1685 ])) 0))

PATCH [6/n] X32: Supprot 32bit address

2011-07-18 Thread H.J. Lu
Hi, TARGET_MEM_REF only works on ptr_mode. This patch allows 32bit address in x32 mode. OK for trunk? Thanks. H.J. --- 2011-07-18 H.J. Lu hongjiu...@intel.com * config/i386/i386.c (ix86_legitimate_address_p): Support 32bit address in x32 mode. diff --git

Re: PATCH [6/n] X32: Supprot 32bit address

2011-07-18 Thread Uros Bizjak
On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 8:39 PM, H.J. Lu hongjiu...@intel.com wrote: TARGET_MEM_REF only works on ptr_mode.   This patch allows 32bit address in x32 mode.  OK for trunk? Do you perhaps have a testcase to help in analyzing the problem? Uros.

Re: PATCH [6/n] X32: Supprot 32bit address

2011-07-18 Thread H.J. Lu
On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 11:44 AM, Uros Bizjak ubiz...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 8:39 PM, H.J. Lu hongjiu...@intel.com wrote: TARGET_MEM_REF only works on ptr_mode.   This patch allows 32bit address in x32 mode.  OK for trunk? Do you perhaps have a testcase to help in analyzing

Re: PATCH [6/n] X32: Supprot 32bit address

2011-07-18 Thread Uros Bizjak
On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 8:48 PM, H.J. Lu hjl.to...@gmail.com wrote: TARGET_MEM_REF only works on ptr_mode.   This patch allows 32bit address in x32 mode.  OK for trunk? Do you perhaps have a testcase to help in analyzing the problem? See: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49780

Re: PATCH [6/n] X32: Supprot 32bit address

2011-07-18 Thread Uros Bizjak
On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 10:25 PM, H.J. Lu hjl.to...@gmail.com wrote: TARGET_MEM_REF only works on ptr_mode.   This patch allows 32bit address in x32 mode.  OK for trunk? Do you perhaps have a testcase to help in analyzing the problem? See:

Re: PATCH [6/n] X32: Supprot 32bit address

2011-07-18 Thread H.J. Lu
On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 1:33 PM, Uros Bizjak ubiz...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 10:25 PM, H.J. Lu hjl.to...@gmail.com wrote: TARGET_MEM_REF only works on ptr_mode.   This patch allows 32bit address in x32 mode.  OK for trunk? Do you perhaps have a testcase to help in analyzing

Re: PATCH [6/n] X32: Supprot 32bit address

2011-07-18 Thread H.J. Lu
On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 1:42 PM, H.J. Lu hjl.to...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 1:33 PM, Uros Bizjak ubiz...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 10:25 PM, H.J. Lu hjl.to...@gmail.com wrote: TARGET_MEM_REF only works on ptr_mode.   This patch allows 32bit address in x32 mode.