From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-347209-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 21352 invoked by alias); 14 Feb 2011 14:21:45 -0000
Received: (qmail 21338 invoked by uid 22791); 14 Feb 2011 14:21:44 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.7 required=5.0	tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from localhost (HELO gcc.gnu.org) (127.0.0.1)    by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 14 Feb 2011 14:21:40 +0000
From: "rguenther at suse dot de" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug middle-end/47727] [x32] Many passes can't handle const symbol when Pmode != ptr_mode
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: middle-end
X-Bugzilla-Keywords:
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: rguenther at suse dot de
X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields:
Message-ID: <bug-47727-4-snh1FI14Gt@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-47727-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-47727-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2011 14:28:00 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org
X-SW-Source: 2011-02/txt/msg01675.txt.bz2

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47727

--- Comment #6 from rguenther at suse dot de <rguenther at suse dot de> 2011-02-14 14:21:32 UTC ---
On Mon, 14 Feb 2011, hjl.tools at gmail dot com wrote:

> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47727
> 
> --- Comment #5 from H.J. Lu <hjl.tools at gmail dot com> 2011-02-14 13:51:27 UTC ---
> Does this patch make any senses?
> 
> diff --git a/gcc/simplify-rtx.c b/gcc/simplify-rtx.c
> index ce4eab4..e7e7890 100644
> --- a/gcc/simplify-rtx.c
> +++ b/gcc/simplify-rtx.c
> @@ -1099,10 +1099,13 @@ simplify_unary_operation_1 (enum rtx_code code, enum
> mac
> hine_mode mode, rtx op)
>  #if defined(POINTERS_EXTEND_UNSIGNED) && !defined(HAVE_ptr_extend)
>        /* As we do not know which address space the pointer is refering to,
>       we can do this only if the target does not support different pointer
> -     or address modes depending on the address space.  */
> +     or address modes depending on the address space.  Since we will
> +     generate new instructions, we must be currently emitting into a
> +     sequence.  */
>        if (target_default_pointer_address_modes_p ()
>        && POINTERS_EXTEND_UNSIGNED > 0
>        && mode == Pmode && GET_MODE (op) == ptr_mode
> +      && in_sequence_p ()
>        && (CONSTANT_P (op)
>            || (GET_CODE (op) == SUBREG
>            && REG_P (SUBREG_REG (op))

Not really.  simplify-rtx should never emit new instuctions.  Probably
Ulrich, when introducing address-spaces didn't properly think about
this in convert_memory_address_addr_space ().

Richard.