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: Michael Matz <matz at suse dot de>
To: Jan Hubicka <hubicka at ucw dot cz>
Cc: Jan Hubicka <jh at suse dot cz>, Andi Kleen <ak at suse dot de>, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 17:57:08 +0200 (CEST)
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> <Pine.LNX.4.64.0707251430191.23011@wotan.suse.de> <20070725155145.GB27434@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz>

Hi,

On Wed, 25 Jul 2007, Jan Hubicka wrote:

> Yep, I am aware of those problems (reload dying in horrible death as 
> soon as something didn't ended up matching). I was somewhat confused 
> thinking that gimplifier gimplifies into the pair as in my testcase 
> above, not the "=m" "m" pair.
> 
> I guess we are safe now support them so I would just update the manual 
> with a simple testcase so we know gimplifier does not break and we won't 
> re-start emitting the warning?

Seems sensible, yes.


Ciao,
Michael.

Follow-Ups:
- Re: "+m" constraints bogus?
  - From: Jan Hubicka

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

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