Perhaps explicitly allowing STRING_CST to go through the large data check, instead of removing the var-decl check? Do you see other opcodes that need to be handled too?
David On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 10:46 AM, Sriraman Tallam <tmsri...@google.com> wrote: > On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 10:42 AM, Xinliang David Li <davi...@google.com> > wrote: >> Why removing the tree_code check? > > The actual problem happens because STRING_CSTs (end up in .lrodata) > are not set a far address as they dont match the VAR_DECL check here. > Futher, "ix86_in_large_data_p" call has the TREE_CODE check to do the > right thing so this seems unnecessary & buggy here. > > Thanks > Sri > >> >> David >> >> On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 10:35 AM, Sriraman Tallam <tmsri...@google.com> >> wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> This patch is under review for trunk GCC : >>> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-10/msg01638.html. >>> >>> In the mean time, is this ok for google/gcc-4_9 branch? Without >>> this, -mcmodel=medium is unusable if .lrodata goes beyond the 2G >>> boundary. >>> >>> Thanks >>> Sri
