Those macros use =b etc. in asm constraints, so IMHO you'll get the same
error as for say:
int
foo (void)
{
bar ();
int i = 0;
asm volatile ( : +b (i));
bar ();
return i;
}
when compiled by gcc 4.9 and earlier with -O2 -m32 -fpic:
error: inconsistent operand
Pinski
Cc: Uros Bizjak; Vladimir Makarov; GCC Patches
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/X, i386, PR54232] Enable EBX for x86 in 32bits PIC code
On 10/24/14 17:37, Evgeny Stupachenko wrote:
What if we remove the check?
glibc build pass?
That would be my inclination... But it's not my decision to make
On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 08:48:57AM +, Zamyatin, Igor wrote:
Posted a patch in libc-alpha:
https://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2014-10/msg00701.html
That looks wrong. The non-PIC patterns that are enabled unconditionally
with the patch set/use ebx, which will not work with pre-GCC 5 in
On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 08:48:57AM +, Zamyatin, Igor wrote:
Posted a patch in libc-alpha:
https://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2014-10/msg00701.html
That looks wrong. The non-PIC patterns that are enabled unconditionally
with the patch set/use ebx, which will not work with
On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 12:34:45PM +, Zamyatin, Igor wrote:
On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 08:48:57AM +, Zamyatin, Igor wrote:
Posted a patch in libc-alpha:
https://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2014-10/msg00701.html
That looks wrong. The non-PIC patterns that are enabled
On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 12:43 AM, Evgeny Stupachenko evstu...@gmail.com wrote:
i386 specific part of the patch:
2014-10-08 Ilya Enkovich ilya.enkov...@intel.com
Vladimir Makarov vmaka...@redhat.com
* gcc/config/i386/i386.c (ix86_use_pseudo_pic_reg): New.
What if we remove the check?
glibc build pass?
On Sat, Oct 25, 2014 at 3:09 AM, Andrew Pinski pins...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 12:43 AM, Evgeny Stupachenko evstu...@gmail.com
wrote:
i386 specific part of the patch:
2014-10-08 Ilya Enkovich ilya.enkov...@intel.com
On 10/24/14 17:37, Evgeny Stupachenko wrote:
What if we remove the check?
glibc build pass?
That would be my inclination... But it's not my decision to make.
The first check is to verify glibc builds and passes its testsuite with
the new compiler and that check removed.
jeff
-#define PIC_OFFSET_TABLE_REGNUM \
- ((TARGET_64BIT (ix86_cmodel == CM_SMALL_PIC \
- || TARGET_PECOFF)) \
- || !flag_pic ? INVALID_REGNUM \
- : reload_completed ? REGNO (pic_offset_table_rtx) \
+#define PIC_OFFSET_TABLE_REGNUM \
+ ((TARGET_64BIT (ix86_cmodel ==
On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 5:01 PM, Evgeny Stupachenko evstu...@gmail.com wrote:
-#define PIC_OFFSET_TABLE_REGNUM \
- ((TARGET_64BIT (ix86_cmodel == CM_SMALL_PIC \
- || TARGET_PECOFF)) \
- || !flag_pic ? INVALID_REGNUM \
- : reload_completed ? REGNO (pic_offset_table_rtx) \
On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 9:43 AM, Evgeny Stupachenko evstu...@gmail.com wrote:
i386 specific part of the patch:
2014-10-08 Ilya Enkovich ilya.enkov...@intel.com
Vladimir Makarov vmaka...@redhat.com
* gcc/config/i386/i386.c (ix86_use_pseudo_pic_reg): New.
On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 9:43 AM, Evgeny Stupachenko evstu...@gmail.com wrote:
i386 specific part of the patch:
2014-10-08 Ilya Enkovich ilya.enkov...@intel.com
Vladimir Makarov vmaka...@redhat.com
* gcc/config/i386/i386.c (ix86_use_pseudo_pic_reg): New.
Uros Bizjak ubiz...@gmail.com writes:
On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 9:43 AM, Evgeny Stupachenko evstu...@gmail.com
wrote:
i386 specific part of the patch:
2014-10-08 Ilya Enkovich ilya.enkov...@intel.com
Vladimir Makarov vmaka...@redhat.com
* gcc/config/i386/i386.c
On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 02:34:07PM +0200, Rainer Orth wrote:
Uros Bizjak ubiz...@gmail.com writes:
On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 9:43 AM, Evgeny Stupachenko evstu...@gmail.com
wrote:
i386 specific part of the patch:
2014-10-08 Ilya Enkovich ilya.enkov...@intel.com
Vladimir
Updated ChangeLog:
2014-10-10 Ilya Enkovich ilya.enkov...@intel.com
Vladimir Makarov vmaka...@redhat.com
* config/i386/i386.c (ix86_use_pseudo_pic_reg): New.
(ix86_init_pic_reg): New.
(ix86_select_alt_pic_regnum): Add check on pseudo register.
15 matches
Mail list logo
