This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: "+m" constraints bogus?
> It says that because of the problems you described in reload. Are you
> sure those were ever fixed?
Well, something is definitly weird. I can find patch:
that added a waring. In 3.4 the warning was taken back by rth:
with some disucssion that lead to nowhere.
I will try to find the original Jason's problem, does anyone recall?
> > Obviously having input/output constant is bogus, but for memory the
> > meaning is clear. We used to have problems with reload producing
> > different memory address for input and output variant resulting in ICE,
> > but I believe this problem has been fixed for a while. What about
> > updating docs like this?