This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: PR 6394
- From: law at redhat dot com
- To: "John David Anglin" <dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca>
- Cc: dje at watson dot ibm dot com, geoffk at geoffk dot org, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2002 17:13:28 -0600
- Subject: Re: PR 6394
- Reply-to: law at redhat dot com
In message <200204302128.g3ULSB8S000435@hiauly1.hia.nrc.ca>, "John David Anglin
" writes:
> > In message <200204302007.g3UK7DeK000134@hiauly1.hia.nrc.ca>, "John David
> > Anglin" writes:
> > > DImode is also allowed in FPRs on the PA. The class used by global_all
> oc
> > > for the pseudo was GENERAL_OR_FP_REGS. This was the first class select
> ed
> > > for the psuedo and a register %fr22 was selected from this class.
> > Does the choice of GENERAL_OR_FP_REGS make sense given the uses/sets of
> > the particular register? [ I'm probably not going to have time to look
> > seriously at this today. ]
>
> No. I would say the class should be GENERAL_REGS.
Agreed now that you've remined me that 9reg 66) is a pseudo for PA64 :-)
What I find curious is that we have the same cost (0) for
R1_REGS, GENERAL_REGS and FP_REGS for reg714, yet GENERAL_OR_FP_REGS has
a cost of 7000+?!? Weird.
jeffk