Re: "+m" constraints bogus?

[Jan Hubicka <jh at suse dot cz>]

> 
> 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:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2003-12/msg01806.html
that added a waring.  In 3.4 the warning was taken back by rth:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2004-05/msg00438.html
with some disucssion that lead to nowhere.

I will try to find the original Jason's problem, does anyone recall?

Honza	
> 
> > 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?
> 
> 
> Ciao,
> Michael.