From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-363283-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 7814 invoked by alias); 21 Jul 2011 16:26:25 -0000
Received: (qmail 7799 invoked by uid 22791); 21 Jul 2011 16:26:24 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.8 required=5.0	tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00,TW_ZJ
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; Thu, 21 Jul 2011 16:26:10 +0000
From: "ubizjak at gmail dot com" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug target/49798] .quad instead of .long is used for address for x32
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: target
X-Bugzilla-Keywords:
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: ubizjak at gmail dot com
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-49798-4-GKdiaIwcsW@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-49798-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-49798-4@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: Thu, 21 Jul 2011 16:26:00 -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: 2011-07/txt/msg01767.txt.bz2

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49798

--- Comment #9 from Uros Bizjak <ubizjak at gmail dot com> 2011-07-21 16:25:49 UTC ---
Please compare optimized tree dumps from i686 (a) compilation vs x32 (b):

(a)

foo (union U u)
{
  union U v;
  _Bool D.2000;
  double D.1999;
  double D.1998;
  int D.1997;

<bb 2>:
  v = {};
  v.m = &xxxx;
  D.1998_1 = u.d;
  D.1999_2 = v.d;
  D.2000_3 = D.1998_1 == D.1999_2;
  D.1997_4 = (int) D.2000_3;
  return D.1997_4;

}

(b)

foo (union U u)
{
  double D.2709;
  _Bool D.2704;
  double D.2702;
  int D.2701;

<bb 2>:
  D.2709_8 = VIEW_CONVERT_EXPR<double>(&xxxx);
  D.2702_1 = u.d;
  D.2704_3 = D.2702_1 == D.2709_8;
  D.2701_4 = (int) D.2704_3;
  return D.2701_4;

}

We can't directly move &xxxx (32bit value) to double (64bit value).

However, we expand to:

(insn 6 5 11 (set (reg/f:DI 66)
        (symbol_ref:DI ("xxxx") [flags 0x40]  <var_decl 0x7f71c5925140 xxxx>))
pr49798.c:12 -1
     (nil))

...

(insn 13 12 14 (set (reg:CCFPU 17 flags)
        (compare:CCFPU (reg:DF 73)
            (subreg:DF (reg/f:DI 66) 0))) pr49798.c:13 -1
     (nil))

Does this looks OK?