From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 95417 invoked by alias); 21 Jan 2019 14:23:07 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 95390 invoked by uid 89); 21 Jan 2019 14:23:06 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy= 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, 21 Jan 2019 14:23:04 +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 x0LEN0qr006635; Mon, 21 Jan 2019 08:23:00 -0600 Received: (from segher@localhost) by gate.crashing.org (8.14.1/8.14.1/Submit) id x0LEMwdd006627; Mon, 21 Jan 2019 08:22:58 -0600 Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2019 14:23:00 -0000 From: Segher Boessenkool To: Alan Modra Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: [RS6000] PR88614, output_operand: invalid %z value Message-ID: <20190121142257.GC14180@gate.crashing.org> References: <20190106225918.GG3170@bubble.grove.modra.org> <20190118220213.GT14180@gate.crashing.org> <20190120133833.GF29797@bubble.grove.modra.org> <20190121121857.GG29797@bubble.grove.modra.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20190121121857.GG29797@bubble.grove.modra.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2019-01/txt/msg01201.txt.bz2 On Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 10:48:57PM +1030, Alan Modra wrote: > On Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 12:08:33AM +1030, Alan Modra wrote: > > Hmm, if I invent a couple of new unspecs, UNSPEC_TLSGD_NOMARK and > > UNSPEC_TLSLD_NOMARK, using them in place of UNSPEC_TLSGD and > > UNSPEC_TLSLD when !TARGET_TLS_MARKERS then that should be enough to > > tell when we have a -mno-tls-markers __tls_get_addr call. So I guess > > I could kill off edit_tls_call_insn and tls_gdld_nomark. The > > call_value_local and call_value_indirect insns would then need to > > detect the special call and emit the arg setup insns. > > Here's what the revised approach looks like, but without using new > unspecs. Bootstrap and regression test on powerpc64le-linux and > powerpc64-linux biarch completed, and testing on powerpc64le-linux > with -mno-tls-markers. powerpc64-linux -mno-tls-markers testing still > in progress. OK? This is easier to grok, thanks. I think this would be nicer if you still used insn alternatives here. What is needed for that? > +void > +rs6000_output_tlsargs (rtx *operands) > +{ > + rtx op[3]; Maybe comment what this temporary is for? The patch is okay for trunk (if it survives on at least all three linux targets). Thanks! Segher