This is the mail archive of the gcc@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]

Re: (define_address ...) suggestions needed

To: Alan Lehotsky <lehotsky at tiac dot net>
Subject: Re: (define_address ...) suggestions needed
From: Denis Chertykov <denisc at overta dot ru>
Date: 12 Jan 2000 23:26:28 +0300
Cc: Denis Chertykov <denisc at overta dot ru>, Bernd Schmidt <bernds at balti dot cygnus dot co dot uk>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
References: <Pine.LNX.4.10.10001112040540.7432-100000@balti.cygnus.co.uk> <k8lg8g00.fsf@localhost.localdomain> <v04220802b4a19075a227@[192.168.1.254]>

Alan Lehotsky <lehotsky@tiac.net> writes:

> At 0:17 +0300 1/12/00, Denis Chertykov wrote:

[...]

> >>  mode.  GCC currently has a few hardcoded ones ('<', '>', 'm', 'o',
> >>  ...); it
> >
> >IMHO after (define_address ...) will be fully supported only one
> >constraint 'm' will be needed. See below.
> >
> 
> 	I don't think so.  Some machines restrict the kinds of memory
> 	operands that can appear with certain source or destination
> 	registers.

I agree with you. I don't want to remove another (than 'm')
constraints.


[...]

> 	In fact, the sharc is so weird that I currently have over
> 	TWENTY distinct constraint pairs for load and a different
> 	TWENTY pairs for store!

PLEASE send me a RTL examples.

Denis.

References:
- Re: (define_address ...) suggestions needed
  - From: Bernd Schmidt
- Re: (define_address ...) suggestions needed
  - From: Denis Chertykov

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