From patchwork Thu May 10 00:27:14 2012 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Patchwork-Submitter: DJ Delorie X-Patchwork-Id: 158085 Return-Path: X-Original-To: incoming@patchwork.ozlabs.org Delivered-To: patchwork-incoming@bilbo.ozlabs.org Received: from sourceware.org (server1.sourceware.org [209.132.180.131]) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with SMTP id BE10FB6EE6 for ; Thu, 10 May 2012 10:27:46 +1000 (EST) Comment: DKIM? See http://www.dkim.org DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org; s=default; x=1337214467; h=Comment: DomainKey-Signature:Received:Received:Received:Received:Received: Received:Received:Date:Message-Id:From:To:Subject:Mailing-List: Precedence:List-Id:List-Unsubscribe:List-Archive:List-Post: List-Help:Sender:Delivered-To; bh=QMCMPyoG+zbFbn3X6sEbEOE40xI=; b=Kd327fSSjHnQd/RS0AnhZlQLAT/I8Vm3Zprbs+rmmcBXvP3dgZrXWDdPkaaaOg CwaYEtEWIbh2zxluWrpfS0EQ4y5CiFqv7grgwX28g6AP96ULANJHMDHfMHkqlRjS hTWvseo/Mv84lcLffAbZXd9jgACNPLTCwGz+vwLyO4QXI= Comment: DomainKeys? See http://antispam.yahoo.com/domainkeys DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=default; d=gcc.gnu.org; h=Received:Received:X-SWARE-Spam-Status:X-Spam-Check-By:Received:Received:Received:Received:Received:Date:Message-Id:From:To:Subject:X-IsSubscribed:Mailing-List:Precedence:List-Id:List-Unsubscribe:List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:Sender:Delivered-To; b=CvTqCCN0qLHgpSMPu0oeyNODKttkds8JvPPbCD4iLdPsH1AKlfxmtRbjjHj7GP 7BkJ8cG7UI+euONwpqodX18HJlvWLMw77vKQKarJ3JaOHzZlIFKjkPpEhx656gTC /mUy+CNnwHqpj7VlF3mcuQYIvU9srY1oad/7RuyQy9SOg=; Received: (qmail 26846 invoked by alias); 10 May 2012 00:27:41 -0000 Received: (qmail 26834 invoked by uid 22791); 10 May 2012 00:27:40 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL, BAYES_00, KHOP_RCVD_UNTRUST, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI, SPF_HELO_PASS, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 10 May 2012 00:27:16 +0000 Received: from int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.22]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q4A0RFKV016215 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Wed, 9 May 2012 20:27:16 -0400 Received: from greed.delorie.com (ovpn-113-68.phx2.redhat.com [10.3.113.68]) by int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q4A0RFlv027416 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Wed, 9 May 2012 20:27:15 -0400 Received: from greed.delorie.com (greed.delorie.com [127.0.0.1]) by greed.delorie.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q4A0RE2V022947 for ; Wed, 9 May 2012 20:27:14 -0400 Received: (from dj@localhost) by greed.delorie.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/Submit) id q4A0RELM022946; Wed, 9 May 2012 20:27:14 -0400 Date: Wed, 9 May 2012 20:27:14 -0400 Message-Id: <201205100027.q4A0RELM022946@greed.delorie.com> From: DJ Delorie To: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [h8300] increase dwarf address size X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org Delivered-To: mailing list gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org H8/300 cpus have a larger-than-64k address space, despite 16-bit pointers. OK to apply? Ok for 4.7 branch? See also http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48231 * config/h8300/h8300.h (DWARF2_ADDR_SIZE): Define as 4 bytes. Index: h8300.h =================================================================== --- h8300.h (revision 187362) +++ h8300.h (working copy) @@ -126,12 +126,13 @@ extern const char * const *h8_reg_names; /* The return address is pushed on the stack. */ #define INCOMING_RETURN_ADDR_RTX gen_rtx_MEM (Pmode, gen_rtx_REG (Pmode, STACK_POINTER_REGNUM)) #define INCOMING_FRAME_SP_OFFSET (POINTER_SIZE / 8) #define DWARF_CIE_DATA_ALIGNMENT 2 +#define DWARF2_ADDR_SIZE 4 /* Define this if addresses of constant functions shouldn't be put through pseudo regs where they can be cse'd. Desirable on machines where ordinary constants are expensive but a CALL with constant address is cheap.