This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: [PATCH, ARM, LRA] Prepare ARM build with LRA

> So in the set_* routines it isn't about whether the value is definitely
> a base or a definitely an index.  It's just about drilling down through
> what we've already decided is a base or index to get the inner reg or mem,
> and knowing which XEXPs to look at.  We could instead have used a
> for_each_rtx, or something like that, without any code checks.  But I
> wanted to be precise about the types of address we allow, so that we can
> assert for things we don't understand.  In other words, it was "designed"
> to require the kind of extension Yvan is adding here.

Does this mean that the design is to require a parallel implementation in the 
predicates and in the set routines, i.e. each time you add a new case to the 
predicates, you need to add it (or do something) to the set routines as well?  
If so, that's a little weird, but OK, feel free to revert the de-duplication 
part, but add comments saying that the functions must be kept synchronized.

Eric Botcazou

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]