| Message ID | CAEwic4a09AxJ0AyYt=5tjP6cnPrUf7DW4Jt8HmgCzinR1STbMQ@mail.gmail.com |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
On Sep 20, 2014, at 10:52 AM, Kai Tietz <ktietz70@googlemail.com> wrote: > I missed that op points still on the memory here. So corrected patch > is inlined below. So, I’m wondering if the x86 maintainers want me to review and approve a patch, or if they want to. I was assuming they wanted to.
On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 8:24 PM, Mike Stump <mikestump@comcast.net> wrote: > On Sep 20, 2014, at 10:52 AM, Kai Tietz <ktietz70@googlemail.com> wrote: >> I missed that op points still on the memory here. So corrected patch >> is inlined below. > > So, I’m wondering if the x86 maintainers want me to review and approve a patch, or if they want to. I was assuming they wanted to. As far as I'm concerned, this is Darwin specific patch, so it needs an approval from Darwin maintainer. The patch just happens to live in i386 directory ;) Thanks, Uros.
On Sep 22, 2014, at 11:43 AM, Uros Bizjak <ubizjak@gmail.com> wrote: > As far as I'm concerned, this is Darwin specific patch, so it needs > an approval from Darwin maintainer. The patch just happens to live in > i386 directory ;) Ok, thanks.
Index: predicates.md =================================================================== --- predicates.md (Revision 215364) +++ predicates.md (Arbeitskopie) @@ -73,9 +73,18 @@ ;; Return true if OP is a memory operands that can be used in sibcalls. (define_predicate "sibcall_memory_operand" - (and (match_operand 0 "memory_operand") - (match_test "CONSTANT_P (XEXP (op, 0))"))) + (match_operand 0 "memory_operand") +{ + op = XEXP (op, 0); + if (TARGET_MACHO && TARGET_64BIT + && GET_CODE (op) == CONST + && GET_CODE (XEXP (op, 0)) == UNSPEC + && XINT (XEXP (op, 0), 1) == UNSPEC_GOTPCREL) + return false; + return CONSTANT_P (op); +}) + ;; Match an SI or HImode register for a zero_extract. (define_special_predicate "ext_register_operand" (match_operand 0 "register_operand")