Re: x86 PIC regressions

[Jeffrey A Law <law at cygnus dot com>]

  In message <19980903162501.A32242@dot.cygnus.com>you write:
  > What a pain in the ass.  Push the bubble down here, and it pops
  > up there.  With this one, I don't see any regressions; Uli is
  > running glibc tests for me now -- we'll see what happens there.
This tells me that we need to start looking into what we need to
to do make things right instead of putting band-aids in the backends.

Underneath many of the problems we're seeing on the x86, powerpc, and
PA (in the past) with PIC are due to reload wanting to put items in
the constant pool/static store and hoping that the backend will just
do the right thing.

If we can stop reload from creating new references into the static
store or constant pool don't most of these problems go away?  And
isn't the only way we get these references via the handling of
REG_EQUIV stuff?

Regardless of your patch, we need to start thinking about these
problems.  They're causing us much pain and grief.
jeff