This is the mail archive of the
gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: (i386-linux x sh-elf) build breakage
On Jul 25, 2000, Richard Henderson <rth@cygnus.com> wrote:
> There's not enough abstraction here to make it worth the ugliness.
> You might as well not put all this widgetry in insn-attr.h at all.
Ok. How about insn-addr.h?
>> Since it would have been an error to do it after insn_addresses is
>> constructed, I thought it would be fine. Maybe I should add one
>> argument to INSN_ADDRESSES_PUSH, with the UID of the new insn (or the
>> insn itself). The idea is to help catching as soon as possible the
>> creation of insns without additions to INSN_ADDRESSES.
> The problem here is with insns that get emitted into sequences
> that are discarded, or have their patterns re-emitted into new
> insns. In such a way you get perfectly legitimate gaps in the
> UID sequence.
Ok. Then, INSN_ADDRESSES_PUSH is the wrong name, and we need
INSN_ADDRESSES_SET, taking the UID (or the insn itself) and its
address. Any preference between UID or the insn itself?
--
Alexandre Oliva Enjoy Guarana', see http://www.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Red Hat GCC Developer aoliva@{cygnus.com, redhat.com}
CS PhD student at IC-Unicamp oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist *Please* write to mailing lists, not to me