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: Geoff Keating <geoffk at redhat dot com>
- Cc: dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca, dje at watson dot ibm dot com, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2002 17:44:09 -0600
- Subject: Re: PR 6394
- Reply-to: law at redhat dot com
In message <200204302327.g3UNR2X26790@desire.geoffk.org>, Geoff Keating writes:
> > cc: dje@watson.ibm.com, geoffk@geoffk.org, gcc@gcc.gnu.org
> > Reply-To: law@redhat.com
> > From: law@redhat.com
> > Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2002 17:13:28 -0600
> > X-OriginalArrivalTime: 30 Apr 2002 23:10:46.0384 (UTC) FILETIME=[42787700:
> 01C1F09C]
> >
> > In message <200204302128.g3ULSB8S000435@hiauly1.hia.nrc.ca>, "John David A
> nglin
> > " writes:
> > > > In message <200204302007.g3UK7DeK000134@hiauly1.hia.nrc.ca>, "John D
> avid
> > > > Anglin" writes:
> > > > > DImode is also allowed in FPRs on the PA. The class used by globa
> l_all
> > > oc
> > > > > for the pseudo was GENERAL_OR_FP_REGS. This was the first class s
> elect
> > > 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 lo
> ok
> > > > 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.
>
> Possibly because GENERAL_OR_FP_REGS doesn't match FP_REG_CLASS_P?
Unknown. Do we actually pass super classes down to REGISTER_MOVE_COST?
jeffk