Re: PATCH [2/n]: Prepare x32: Convert pointer to TLS symbol if needed

[Richard Sandiford <richard.sandiford@linaro.org>]

"H.J. Lu" <hjl.tools@gmail.com> writes:
> On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 7:06 AM, H.J. Lu <hjl.tools@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 1:45 AM, Richard Sandiford
>> <richard.sandiford@linaro.org> wrote:
>>> "H.J. Lu" <hongjiu.lu@intel.com> writes:
>>>> @@ -706,7 +706,13 @@ precompute_register_parameters (int num_actuals, struct arg_data *args,
>>>>          pseudo now.  TLS symbols sometimes need a call to resolve.  */
>>>>       if (CONSTANT_P (args[i].value)
>>>>           && !targetm.legitimate_constant_p (args[i].mode, args[i].value))
>>>> -       args[i].value = force_reg (args[i].mode, args[i].value);
>>>> +       {
>>>> +         if (GET_MODE (args[i].value) != args[i].mode)
>>>> +           args[i].value = convert_to_mode (args[i].mode,
>>>> +                                            args[i].value,
>>>> +                                            args[i].unsignedp);
>>>> +         args[i].value = force_reg (args[i].mode, args[i].value);
>>>> +       }
>>>
>>> But if GET_MODE (args[i].value) != args[i].mode, then the call to
>>> targetm.legitimate_constant_p looks wrong.  The mode passed in the
>>> first argument is supposed to the mode of the second argument.
>>>
>>> Is there any reason why this and the following:
>>>
>>>        /* If we are to promote the function arg to a wider mode,
>>>           do it now.  */
>>>
>>>        if (args[i].mode != TYPE_MODE (TREE_TYPE (args[i].tree_value)))
>>>          args[i].value
>>>            = convert_modes (args[i].mode,
>>>                             TYPE_MODE (TREE_TYPE (args[i].tree_value)),
>>>                             args[i].value, args[i].unsignedp);
>>>
>>> need to be done in the current order?  I can't think of any off-hand.
>>> If not, would swapping them also fix the bug?
>>>
>>> (I can't review this either way, of course.)
>>
>> It works on the testcase.  I will do a full test.
>>
>
> It works.  There are no regressions on Linux/x86-64.

Great!  I can't approve it, but FWIW, it looks good to me.  The new order
seems to make more conceptual sense: coerce the value into the right mode,
then coerce it into the right type of rtx.

Richard