This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: IRA patch: use ORDER_REGS_FOR_LOCAL_ALLOC
Bernd Schmidt wrote:
On 04/28/2010 04:33 AM, Vladimir N. Makarov wrote: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
On 04/27/2010 07:03 PM, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
Yes, I think it is better to rename the macro, e.g.
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
ORDER_REGS_FOR_ALLOC, because the current name is a misleading one.
Yes, probably introducing a new macro is a better solution.
Should I add a new target macro that decides whether to ignore those
With these changes, it is ok for the trunk. Thanks for working on this