Re: IRA patch: use ORDER_REGS_FOR_LOCAL_ALLOC

[Vladimir Makarov <vmakarov at redhat dot com>]

Bernd Schmidt wrote:
> On 04/28/2010 04:33 AM, Vladimir N. Makarov wrote:
>   
> > On 04/27/2010 07:03 PM, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
> >     
> > > That's the thing, there is only one way to define REG_ALLOC_ORDER since
> > > it's an initializer.  If you need different ones depending on target
> > > switches, as on ARM/Thumb, you need ORDER_REGS_FOR_LOCAL_ALLOC.  It's
> > > just misnamed.  Even pre-IRA, it had an effect on both local and
> > > global-alloc.
> > >
> > >    
> > >       
> > Yes, I think it is better to rename the macro, e.g.
> > ORDER_REGS_FOR_ALLOC, because the current name is a misleading one.
> >     
>
>   
> > > Should I add a new target macro that decides whether to ignore those
> > > costs?
> > >
> > >    
> > >       
> > Yes, probably introducing a new macro is a better solution.
> >     
>
> How's this?
>
>   
It is ok for me (assuming you will fix the IRA_HONOR vs HONOR confusion 
as you wrote in the next email).  I only found that there are no 
changelog entries for other machine descriptions.  It also would be nice 
to poison ORDER_REGS_FOR_LOCAL_ALLOC in system.h too as Joseph Myers 
proposed.

With these changes, it is ok for the trunk.  Thanks for working on this 
issue, Bernd.