This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Question on canonical representation of PLUS..
- To: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Subject: Question on canonical representation of PLUS..
- From: apl at alum dot mit dot edu
- Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2001 09:49:59 -0400 (EDT)
Is it correct to believe that an address constant like
(plus:QI (symbol_ref:QI ("bs"))
(const_int 1 [0x1]))
should always be wrapped in a CONST rtx? I've suddenly started to
get assertion failures because my EXTRA_CONSTRAINTS checks for memory
addresses that are CONSTANT_ADDRESS_P.
It appears that the first CSE pass is substituting in a non-CONST
rtx in place of the CONST that originally appeared.
I can certainly fix this in my backend by checking for PLUS with
CONSTANT_P operands, but I am guessing that that would just wallpaper
over the real bug....
-- Al