This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH, ARM, LRA] Prepare ARM build with LRA
- From: Eric Botcazou <ebotcazou at adacore dot com>
- To: Richard Sandiford <rdsandiford at googlemail dot com>
- Cc: gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org, Yvan Roux <yvan dot roux at linaro dot org>, Vladimir Makarov <vmakarov at redhat dot com>, Richard Earnshaw <rearnsha at arm dot com>, Marcus Shawcroft <marcus dot shawcroft at arm dot com>, Ramana Radhakrishnan <Ramana dot Radhakrishnan at arm dot com>, Matthew Gretton-Dann <matthew dot gretton-dann at linaro dot org>, Patch Tracking <patches at linaro dot org>, Richard Henderson <rth at redhat dot com>
- Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2013 19:33:22 +0200
- Subject: Re: [PATCH, ARM, LRA] Prepare ARM build with LRA
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <CAD57uCfrF9Ns=jghNJOD07p5wg+_zcTc6wmfOknau3iSg4FvWg at mail dot gmail dot com> <2645374 dot 4NZeFxJkzv at polaris> <87bo3igoss dot fsf at sandifor-thinkpad dot stglab dot manchester dot uk dot ibm dot com>
> FWIW, I'd prefer to keep it as-is, since must_be_base_p (x) and
> must_be_index_p (x) don't imply that we should look specifically at
> XEXP (x, 0) (rather than just X, or XEXP (x, 1), etc.). I think it's
> better to keep the code tests and the associated XEXPs together.
Feel free to revert this part, but then add appropriate comments explaining
why we are interested in LO_SUM for set_address_base and in MULT and the 5
others for set_address_index. If it's because the former is rather a base
than an index and vice-versa for the latter, then it's even clearer with the
predicates I think.