This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Bug on PA-RISC
- From: law at redhat dot com
- To: Joern Rennecke <amylaar at onetel dot net dot uk>
- Cc: dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca (John David Anglin), gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Sun, 09 Jun 2002 01:22:56 -0600
- Subject: Re: Bug on PA-RISC
- Reply-to: law at redhat dot com
In message <200206090014.BAA17565@meolyon.local>, Joern Rennecke writes:
> law@redhat.com wrote:
> >
> > In message <200206042048.g54KmJk6016494@hiauly1.hia.nrc.ca>, "John David A
> nglin
> > " writes:
> > > register copy if reload wasn't so stupid. Currently, when it finds the
> > > symbolic mem value that can't be loaded directly to a FPR register, it
> > > creates a new insn to load the value to a different FPR register (when
> > > copies aren't disparaged) and then copies the value in the new FPR
> > > register to the old FPR register. It doesn't recognize that the new
> > > insn that it has created has the same problem as the old one. Somehow,
> > > we need to get reload to use the address of the MEM when it needs to
> > > reload a LO_SUM MEM.
> > This would be a bug in how we handle secondary reloads somehow, and while
> > it's possible that we have such a bug, I'd really need more information
> > (dumps, particularly the .lreg and .greg dumps) to figure it out.
>
> What you want are a reload_indf / reload_outdf expanders, so that you can
> load your register exactly the way you like it.
Duh. Like the PA port has only had them for 10 years or so.... Or was this
for David's benefit?
jeff