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, mark at codesourcery dot com, dave dot anglin at nrc dot ca, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2002 21:32:09 -0600
- Subject: Re: PR 6394
- Reply-to: law at redhat dot com
In message <200205010252.g412qkvI001506@hiauly1.hia.nrc.ca>, "John David
Anglin" writes:
> Trying to fix the 'T' constraint was in fact the approach I tried first.
> Hopefully, I didn't do it correctly.
Can you describe in a little more detail what you tried?
The underlying problem I see is that 'T' should be rejecting LO_SUM (...)
addresses (the 'T' constraint is for short displacement loads/stores).
> In my original patch, the 'A'
> contraint was placed before the 'T' constraint because it accepted address
> loads into FP registers. If your 'T' fixes works and it proves necessary
> to handle address loads into FP registers, possibly '!' could be used
> to severely disparage the 'A' FP alternative.
So far I haven't had to twiddle anything else other than to have the
'T' constraint reject PIC addresses.
jeff