Re: [RTL, ColdFire 24/63] Add support for a MODE_INDEX_REG_CLASS macro

[Jeffrey Law <law at redhat dot com>]

On Tue, 2007-02-27 at 19:12 +0000, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> >
> > Once you do that, there is no current need to make double_reg_address_ok
> > an array of booleans, and doing so would just make the compiler slightly
> > slower.  So although I agree we should it if some other port needs it
> > (i.e. if some other port allows disp(base,index) addresses for some
> > modes and allows only plain (base,index) address for others), I don't
> > think we should otherwise.
> 
> And you haven't addressed that point.  Do you disagree that INDEX_REG_CLASS
> is supposed to be NO_REGS if no index regs are allowed?
The validity of indexing is mode dependent on your target.  For every
mode that allows indexed addressing the set of valid index registers
is the same.


> 
> > I haven't really tested the attached patch except to verify that 
> > the provided testcase no longer aborts and that the reloads we
> > generate for the problem insn look correct.  However, I feel its a
> > much more correct solution than what you're trying to do.
> 
> I honestly don't understand why you think my patch is unreasonable.
Because it's not fixing the problem, it's papering over the problem.

I am rejecting your patch, over Ian's prior approval.  I would
ask that you look at the double_reg_address_ok patch -- I'm
pretty sure it's a more correct fix.  Unfortunately, I don't really
have machines suitable for heavy stress testing the patch.

jeff