This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH 13/28] mn10300: cleanup secondary reloads
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 01/18/11 11:35, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On 01/18/2011 10:30 AM, Jeff Law wrote:
>>> I used BASE_REG_CLASS as that is already defined such that we get
>>> GENERAL_REGS in AM33 mode and ADDRESS_REGS in MN103 mode.
>> Doesn't BASE_REG_CLASS include SP_REGS, which are highly restricted in
>> how they can be used?
>
> Hmm, true.
>
> In this specific place we're looking for a place to move SP_REG.
> I suppose a "move" of SP to SP would be ok, so long as it turns
> out to be valid for everything else? Or should I go ahead and
> be safe and choose the class that excludes SP?
I think the safe thing to do is use a class which excludes SP; it may
not matter in the end, but we already know that works. We could mark it
as a future TODO to just use BASE_REG_CLASS.
Jeff
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJNNwPQAAoJEBRtltQi2kC7CuIH/R9U3WzHpiZT7FX1qvtV0HJN
a5DlbS1T5lGo6P/iZHPrr25Qf40p3aUVOkL0Mf7K96jrYBPpzWJr/ELEHja2Hpn8
aQxq7XzSCwY39ZKcin1U5/0gLzDCXnm+rkNQqx2M5+IZOMUn6RHg4tER52+61C21
i9xKnIxkXTwmHMuAX8cAveILUubxpq4Fx8Qe+aBb0Kj57Uvmphypj2o9HcoEiVDJ
AkyrtJZyZ74eW5jBTSJVkT/WR+2q5F26sZfoAKqW2IP4hLCyRNGwO7Zf+8dcetL8
Fw6BNe7GujMh1J98dSZHjFtFKMk8fx18gxGiPygdnQkpWIJSVn3s3f2QUDBxnxc=
=UUub
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----