Re: rearranging REG_ALLOC_ORDER in gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.h

[Mike Stump <mrs at apple dot com>]

On Wednesday, June 11, 2003, at 03:04 PM, Jim Wilson wrote:
> I think your message is misdirected.

You said, `In both cases, you have to get this exactly right or you 
can't do it at all' and I just wanted to note that we've not had that 
as a general rule in the past.  I don't feel that was misdirected, but, 
this isn't a big point.

> You seem to have assumed I am against it.

I didn't think you stated a position.

> I think your arguments are weak.

Agreed.  In fact, I respect that if people want to mandate it work 
perfectly before any patch is accepted, that is their call.  I can 
still note that many things have been done in the past that haven't met 
the criteria of being `exactly right'.

> If you want to be helpful, point Graeme at the discussion you started
> when you proposed a similar patch.  I don't recall when you posted it,
> maybe you do?

google("Zack FP integer register rs6000") finds it easily enough:

http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2002-10/msg00700.html