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]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: Dumb register allocation (PPC)


In message <jmptzxb6m4.fsf@desire.geoffk.org>, Geoff Keating writes:
 > David Edelsohn <dje@watson.ibm.com> writes:
 > 
 > > >>>>> Richard Henderson writes:
 > > 
 > > Richard> Eh?  My objection is still going to be potential reload
 > > Richard> failures.  Which "fact" is going to ensure that you
 > > Richard> introduce no failures on any target?
 > > 
 > > 	So maybe this should be enabled on a target-by-target basis
 > > instead of SMALL_REGISTER_CLASSES?
 > 
 > Either the change is correct or it is not.  If it is correct, it works
 > for all targets.  If it is not, it'll probably break something on most
 > targets, and we don't want it.
So, with that in mind, does this code lengthen the lifetime of the
return register?  If it does, then that's a serious correctness
issue.



jeff


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