This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: "+m" constraints bogus?
On Wed, 25 Jul 2007, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> Yep, I am aware of those problems (reload dying in horrible death as
> soon as something didn't ended up matching). I was somewhat confused
> thinking that gimplifier gimplifies into the pair as in my testcase
> above, not the "=m" "m" pair.
> I guess we are safe now support them so I would just update the manual
> with a simple testcase so we know gimplifier does not break and we won't
> re-start emitting the warning?
Seems sensible, yes.