On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 12:34:25PM +0930, Alan Modra wrote: > and fixes pr54009.
David, in looking over this today, I realised that this bug isn't completely fixed. I stopped gcc emitting an offset of 32768, but that isn't enough. lo_sum addresses can't be offset, except when you know the alignment of the object being addressed guarantees that no part crosses a 32k boundary. For example, given lis 9,x@ha; lwz 3,x@l(9); lwz 4,x+4@l(9); we run into trouble if x happens to reside at n*64k + 32764. The final address matters, not just the offset in the insn. So I have some changes to mem_operand_gpr and rs6000_secondary_reload. I'll post a patch on top of the previous one. Another thing. I reckon we can do without the 'wY' constraint. I implemented it because movtf_internal currently uses an "o" constraint, but it seems to me that rs6000_legitimate_address_p already prevents non-offsettable TFmode addresses for mems accessed by fprs. Geoff introduced the "o" on movtf here: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2003-12/msg00803.html Thoughts? -- Alan Modra Australia Development Lab, IBM
