| Message ID | 524BF011.8050002@arm.com |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
diff --git a/gcc/config/arm/arm.c b/gcc/config/arm/arm.c index e23e29a..2f1e0b8 100644 --- a/gcc/config/arm/arm.c +++ b/gcc/config/arm/arm.c @@ -7547,7 +7547,11 @@ arm_legitimize_reload_address (rtx *p, return false; /* Reload the high part into a base reg; leave the low part - in the mem. */ + in the mem. + Note that replacing this gen_rtx_PLUS with plus_constant is + wrong in this case because we rely on the + (plus (plus reg c1) c2) structure being preserved so that + XEXP (*p, 0) in push_reload below uses the correct term. */ *p = gen_rtx_PLUS (GET_MODE (*p), gen_rtx_PLUS (GET_MODE (*p), XEXP (*p, 0), GEN_INT (high)),
Hi all, I've committed the attached patch to make it mode clear why we use gen_rtx_PLUS instead of plus_constant in that particular instance. Committed as obvious with r203106. Kyrill 2013-10-02 Kyrylo Tkachov <kyrylo.tkachov@arm.com> * config/arm/arm.c (arm_legitimize_reload_address): Explain why plus_constant is not used.