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: patch that caused regression PR middle-end/8808

From: Jan Hubicka <jh at suse dot cz>
To: Richard Henderson <rth at redhat dot com>, Jan Hubicka <jh at suse dot cz>,Janis Johnson <janis187 at us dot ibm dot com>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org,rodrigc at attbi dot com, bangerth at ticam dot utexas dot edu
Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 00:11:34 +0100
Subject: Re: patch that caused regression PR middle-end/8808
References: <20021218141138.A31322@us.ibm.com> <20021219093753.GC16671@kam.mff.cuni.cz> <20021219181844.GA10293@redhat.com>

> On Thu, Dec 19, 2002 at 10:37:53AM +0100, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> > Yes, however I am not at all sure how this can be done.  Fixed register,
> > for instance can be used in the asm("xxx") in rare situations, so I
> > really don't see how one can validate such things.
> 
> We could have another array, along side FIXED and CALL_USED,
> that was UNAVAILABLE.  Errors would be issued for using asm
> registers in this set.
You mean defining new register array based on new target macro and do
testing only when such macro exists?  That sounds like a plan, I can
implement it over the christmas.

Honza
> 
> 
> r~

References:
- patch that caused regression PR middle-end/8808
  - From: Janis Johnson
- Re: patch that caused regression PR middle-end/8808
  - From: Jan Hubicka
- Re: patch that caused regression PR middle-end/8808
  - From: Richard Henderson

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