This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: stormy16: limit SI reload regs
- From: Geoff Keating <geoffk at geoffk dot org>
- To: dj at redhat dot com
- Cc: gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2003 17:42:58 -0700
- Subject: Re: stormy16: limit SI reload regs
- References: <200304292136.h3TLa8809569@greed.delorie.com> <jmwuhd55hn.fsf@desire.geoffk.org> <200304300401.h3U41L007885@greed.delorie.com> <200304301928.h3UJSjF17432@greed.delorie.com> <200304302031.h3UKVL911399@desire.geoffk.org> <200304302310.h3UNArW18812@greed.delorie.com> <200305010023.h410NS711520@desire.geoffk.org> <200305010029.h410TOw01675@greed.delorie.com>
> X-Original-To: geoffk@foam.wonderslug.com
> Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2003 20:29:24 -0400
> From: DJ Delorie <dj@redhat.com>
> Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
> X-OriginalArrivalTime: 01 May 2003 00:29:34.0555 (UTC) FILETIME=[BD74DAB0:01C30F78]
>
>
> > I really think it would be better to fix reload than to keep trying to
> > work around this in the port.
>
> Except in your last post you said...
>
> > That won't work in general; sometimes you'll just happen to have a
> > variable in the wrong register, and reload won't reload it because
> > it fits the constraint even though it's not preferred.
>
> You seemed to imply that fixing reload wouldn't solve the problem
> completely. Did I misinterpret your post?
This was in response to a different change to the xstormy16 backend,
not to a change in reload.
--
- Geoffrey Keating <geoffk@geoffk.org>