This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: PR 6394
- From: Geoff Keating <geoffk at geoffk dot org>
- To: law at redhat dot com
- Cc: dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca, dje at watson dot ibm dot com, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2002 16:27:02 -0700
- Subject: Re: PR 6394
- References: <32024.1020208408@porcupine.cygnus.com>
- Reply-to: Geoff Keating <geoffk at redhat dot com>
> cc: dje@watson.ibm.com, geoffk@geoffk.org, gcc@gcc.gnu.org
> Reply-To: law@redhat.com
> From: law@redhat.com
> Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2002 17:13:28 -0600
> X-OriginalArrivalTime: 30 Apr 2002 23:10:46.0384 (UTC) FILETIME=[42787700:01C1F09C]
>
> In message <200204302128.g3ULSB8S000435@hiauly1.hia.nrc.ca>, "John David Anglin
> " writes:
> > > In message <200204302007.g3UK7DeK000134@hiauly1.hia.nrc.ca>, "John David
> > > Anglin" writes:
> > > > DImode is also allowed in FPRs on the PA. The class used by global_all
> > oc
> > > > for the pseudo was GENERAL_OR_FP_REGS. This was the first class select
> > ed
> > > > for the psuedo and a register %fr22 was selected from this class.
> > > Does the choice of GENERAL_OR_FP_REGS make sense given the uses/sets of
> > > the particular register? [ I'm probably not going to have time to look
> > > seriously at this today. ]
> >
> > No. I would say the class should be GENERAL_REGS.
> Agreed now that you've remined me that 9reg 66) is a pseudo for PA64 :-)
>
> What I find curious is that we have the same cost (0) for
> R1_REGS, GENERAL_REGS and FP_REGS for reg714, yet GENERAL_OR_FP_REGS has
> a cost of 7000+?!? Weird.
Possibly because GENERAL_OR_FP_REGS doesn't match FP_REG_CLASS_P?
--
- Geoffrey Keating <geoffk@geoffk.org> <geoffk@redhat.com>