From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-patches-return-492651-listarch-gcc-patches=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 126671 invoked by alias); 17 Dec 2018 15:23:28 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc-patches.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 126365 invoked by uid 89); 17 Dec 2018 15:23:28 -0000
Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none
X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=0.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_05,KAM_NUMSUBJECT,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=no version=3.3.2 spammy=sk:PIC_OFF, sk:pic_off, invalid_regnum, meaningless
X-HELO: gate.crashing.org
Received: from gate.crashing.org (HELO gate.crashing.org) (63.228.1.57) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Mon, 17 Dec 2018 15:23:26 +0000
Received: from gate.crashing.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])	by gate.crashing.org (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id wBHFN40T027531;	Mon, 17 Dec 2018 09:23:09 -0600
Received: (from segher@localhost)	by gate.crashing.org (8.14.1/8.14.1/Submit) id wBHFN2ca027526;	Mon, 17 Dec 2018 09:23:02 -0600
Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2018 15:23:00 -0000
From: Segher Boessenkool <segher@kernel.crashing.org>
To: Dimitar Dimitrov <dimitar@dinux.eu>
Cc: Christophe Lyon <christophe.lyon@linaro.org>,        Thomas Preudhomme <thomas.preudhomme@linaro.org>,        gcc Patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>,        Richard Sandiford <richard.sandiford@arm.com>,        "Thomas Preud'homme" <thomas.preudhomme@arm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] [RFC] PR target/52813 and target/11807
Message-ID: <20181217152301.GV3803@gate.crashing.org>
References: <20181209100856.14051-1-dimitar@dinux.eu> <3948697.eYaff1WIgU@tpdeb> <20181214085217.GM3803@gate.crashing.org> <53282174.7PqLvzYRYy@tpdeb>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <53282174.7PqLvzYRYy@tpdeb>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i
X-IsSubscribed: yes
X-SW-Source: 2018-12/txt/msg01225.txt.bz2

On Sun, Dec 16, 2018 at 10:43:47AM +0200, Dimitar Dimitrov wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 14 2018 2:52:17 EET Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> > You need a few tweaks to what you committed.  Or just one perhaps: if
> > flag_pic is not set, you should not check PIC_OFFSET_TABLE_REGNUM, it is
> > meaningless in that case.  I'm not sure if you need to check whether the
> > register is fixed or not.
> The flag_pic flag is already checked by the PIC_OFFSET_TABLE_REGNUM macro. It 
> will return INVALID_REGNUM if flag_pic is false, so no error will be printed.

No, it is not.  On at least six targets the macro is simply defined as a
register number.


Segher