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]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: PR 6394


> 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>


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