This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [RFC] avoiding too narrow register classes in reload
- From: Richard Henderson <rth at redhat dot com>
- To: Alexandre Oliva <aoliva at redhat dot com>
- Cc: Bernd Schmidt <bernds_cb1 at t-online dot de>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2004 14:31:27 -0800
- Subject: Re: [RFC] avoiding too narrow register classes in reload
- References: <email@example.com> <20041214020635.GA16249@redhat.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org>
On Tue, Dec 14, 2004 at 07:20:10PM -0200, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> I realize the patch introduces some possibly-significant semantic
> changes, in that NO_REGS is now regarded as a SMALL_REGISTER_CLASS_P
I think that is indeed a surprising result.
> Does it make sense to narrow the
> predicate to hold only for non-empty classes, and adjust the
> one-before-last hunk, that uses the negated predicate in a way that
> requires it to hold for empty classes?