This is the mail archive of the gcc@gcc.gnu.org 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]

Re: pre_inc/pre_dec/PUSH_ROUNDING inconsistency

To: Jan Hubicka <jh at suse dot cz>
Subject: Re: pre_inc/pre_dec/PUSH_ROUNDING inconsistency
From: Richard Henderson <rth at cygnus dot com>
Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2000 12:30:26 -0700
Cc: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
References: <20000716160420.A26370@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz> <20000717140714.D13024@cygnus.com> <20000729001700.Q13228@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz>

On Sat, Jul 29, 2000 at 12:17:00AM +0200, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> It looks to me, that current POST_MODIFY patches are exactly what we
> need for way out of the PUSH_ROUNDING troubles.  Does sound sensible
> to you patch to emit_push_insn that will just use POST_MODIFY instead
> of PRE_DEC in case the PUSH_ROUNDING != GET_MODE_SIZE?

Or rather PRE_MODIFY you mean?  *shrug*  Perhaps.  The only
issue I see is that PUSH_ROUNDING is actually lying about
what the machine is doing, and that of course is causing the
problems.

r~

References:
- pre_inc/pre_dec/PUSH_ROUNDING inconsistency
  - From: Jan Hubicka
- Re: pre_inc/pre_dec/PUSH_ROUNDING inconsistency
  - From: Richard Henderson
- Re: pre_inc/pre_dec/PUSH_ROUNDING inconsistency
  - From: Jan Hubicka

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