This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: "+m" constraints bogus?

From: Jan Hubicka <hubicka at ucw dot cz>
To: Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gmail dot com>
Cc: Jan Hubicka <jh at suse dot cz>, Michael Matz <matz at suse dot de>, Andi Kleen <ak at suse dot de>, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 08:54:44 +0200
Subject: Re: "+m" constraints bogus?
References: <200707231815.49723.ak@suse.de> <20070723170934.GP1758@kam.mff.cuni.cz> <Pine.LNX.4.64.0707241839190.23011@wotan.suse.de> <20070724174344.GC15908@kam.mff.cuni.cz> <de8d50360707241144w7b823be4xbbf8ce2e651c6b0c@mail.gmail.com>

> On 7/24/07, Jan Hubicka <jh@suse.cz> wrote:
> >I will try to find the original Jason's problem, does anyone recall?
> 
> well the gimplifier no longer allows "+m" to pass to expand, we always
> expoand the constraints.

Yep, I noticed we decompose it now, however it still does not quite
answer whether we can accept +m now or not... (ie whether there exists
testcases where reload desynchronize input and output constraint for
some good reason).

Honza

References:
- "+m" constraints bogus?
  - From: Jan Hubicka
- Re: "+m" constraints bogus?
  - From: Michael Matz
- Re: "+m" constraints bogus?
  - From: Jan Hubicka
- Re: "+m" constraints bogus?
  - From: Andrew Pinski

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]