This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: question regarding regrename and failure of 950704-1.c on main
- From: law at redhat dot com
- To: Richard Henderson <rth at redhat dot com>
- Cc: John David Anglin <dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Fri, 10 May 2002 14:47:10 -0600
- Subject: Re: question regarding regrename and failure of 950704-1.c on main
- Reply-to: law at redhat dot com
In message <20020510132431.B16397@redhat.com>, Richard Henderson writes:
> On Fri, May 10, 2002 at 02:52:28PM -0400, John David Anglin wrote:
> > The drawback to this approach is that fewer choices are available.
> > How hard would it be to handle arbitrary overlaps and do you think
> > there would be a benefit in doing it?
> The long-term proper way to handle overlaps is to split
> the instructions so that you needn't worry about them.
To some extent you're correct. Though we do have the pain of then modeling
the carry/borrow bits and such, which we've tried to avoid :-)