This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: arm constant pool problems
- To: Philip Blundell <philb at gnu dot org>
- Subject: Re: arm constant pool problems
- From: Richard Earnshaw <rearnsha at arm dot com>
- Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2000 09:52:42 +0100
- Cc: gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Cc: rearnsha at arm dot com
- Organization: ARM Ltd.
- Reply-To: rearnsha at arm dot com
> >I'm not saying the above is wrong, but I don't think it should be needed:
> >the neg_pool_range attribute value should already take this into account
> >(note that they are all slightly less than the maximum value). I'll have
> >a look at this, but it won't be soon since I'm going to be out of the
> >office for most of the next two weeks.
> Oh. I assumed the difference between -1024 and -1012 was there just to take
> care of pipelining.
It needs to cover four things.
1) The size of the pool entry
2) The location of the instruction in the output sequence of
the insn (only important if the insn creates more than one
3) The pipeline offset
4) The pc-relative range of the instruction doing the load.
For forward fetches only 2) and 4) important to get right. For backward
fetches, they are all important.