Is this a typo in setup_incoming_varargs_64?

Is this a typo in setup_incoming_varargs_64?

[H.J. Lu]

Hi,

setup_incoming_varargs_64 in i386.c has

      /* Compute address to jump to :
         label - 5*eax + nnamed_sse_arguments*5  */
      tmp_reg = gen_reg_rtx (Pmode);
      nsse_reg = gen_reg_rtx (Pmode);
      emit_insn (gen_zero_extendqidi2 (nsse_reg, gen_rtx_REG (QImode, AX_REG)));
      emit_insn (gen_rtx_SET (VOIDmode, tmp_reg,
                              gen_rtx_MULT (Pmode, nsse_reg,
                                            GEN_INT (4))));
      if (cum->sse_regno)
        emit_move_insn
          (nsse_reg,
           gen_rtx_CONST (DImode,
                          gen_rtx_PLUS (DImode,
                                        label_ref,
                                        GEN_INT (cum->sse_regno * 4))));
      else
        emit_move_insn (nsse_reg, label_ref);
      emit_insn (gen_subdi3 (nsse_reg, nsse_reg, tmp_reg));

The comments don't match the code. Shout the comments be

     /* Compute address to jump to :
         label - 4*eax + nnamed_sse_arguments*4  */

Thanks.

-- 
H.J.

Re: Is this a typo in setup_incoming_varargs_64?

[Jan Hubicka]

> Hi,
> 
> setup_incoming_varargs_64 in i386.c has
> 
>       /* Compute address to jump to :
>          label - 5*eax + nnamed_sse_arguments*5  */
> 
> The comments don't match the code. Shout the comments be
> 
>      /* Compute address to jump to :
>          label - 4*eax + nnamed_sse_arguments*4  */

Yes, this is most likely type caused by originally using different
register than eax that resulted in different length of encoding.
Thanks for noticing it!
Honza
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> -- 
> H.J.