From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 24186 invoked by alias); 29 Oct 2002 20:41:09 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 24147 invoked from network); 29 Oct 2002 20:41:08 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz) (195.113.31.123) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 29 Oct 2002 20:41:08 -0000 Received: by atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz (Postfix, from userid 4018) id 8C9DA4F9B8; Tue, 29 Oct 2002 21:41:07 +0100 (CET) Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 12:41:00 -0000 From: Jan Hubicka To: Jakub Jelinek Cc: Jan Hubicka , gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, rth@redhat.com Subject: Re: Fix x86-64 PIC Message-ID: <20021029204107.GA26265@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz> References: <20021029192314.GG23564@kam.mff.cuni.cz> <20021029153915.G10988@devserv.devel.redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20021029153915.G10988@devserv.devel.redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i X-SW-Source: 2002-10/txt/msg01796.txt.bz2 > On Tue, Oct 29, 2002 at 08:23:14PM +0100, Jan Hubicka wrote: > > > > Hi, > > I've found that we generate lousy code for x86-64 PIC because we refuse any > > symbolic addresses in address operand. > > This patch reorders the checks to be done in proper order (IE do not check > > sign_extended_value for values otherwise special cased for PIC) > > Could you please post some testcases of source lousy code? > I'd like to know what valid 32-bit sign extended values my recent x86_64_sign_extended_value > changes don't catch. static int t; q() { t=1; } &t is not sign_extended_value, but t(%rip) is valid and recognized by the pic_operand later. Honza > Thanks. > > Jakub