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: Why is targetm.fixed_condition_code_regs a function?

From: Richard Henderson <rth at redhat dot com>
To: Zack Weinberg <zack at codesourcery dot com>
Cc: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, Ian Lance Taylor <ian at wasabisystems dot com>
Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2004 20:44:53 -0800
Subject: Re: Why is targetm.fixed_condition_code_regs a function?
References: <87wu6kc72s.fsf@egil.codesourcery.com> <20040219014524.GA23745@redhat.com> <87oervdc07.fsf@egil.codesourcery.com>

On Wed, Feb 18, 2004 at 06:44:08PM -0800, Zack Weinberg wrote:
> Hmm, I suppose, but couldn't we deal with that by modifying the value
> in the array in override_options?  Targets already do plenty of
> diddling of the targetm structure at that point.

*shrug* If you like.  I just figgured it wouldn't make
much difference.


r~

References:
- Why is targetm.fixed_condition_code_regs a function?
  - From: Zack Weinberg
- Re: Why is targetm.fixed_condition_code_regs a function?
  - From: Richard Henderson
- Re: Why is targetm.fixed_condition_code_regs a function?
  - From: Zack Weinberg

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