This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Why is targetm.fixed_condition_code_regs a function?
- From: Richard Earnshaw <rearnsha at arm dot com>
- To: Richard Henderson <rth at redhat dot com>
- Cc: Zack Weinberg <zack at codesourcery dot com>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, Ian Lance Taylor <ian at wasabisystems dot com>, Richard dot Earnshaw at arm dot com
- Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2004 11:16:59 +0000
- Subject: Re: Why is targetm.fixed_condition_code_regs a function?
- Organization: ARM Ltd.
- Reply-to: Richard dot Earnshaw at arm dot com
> On Wed, Feb 18, 2004 at 03:15:55PM -0800, Zack Weinberg wrote:
> > I don't think it is possible for this to change at runtime...
>
> I thought maybe it might change based on -march switches,
> particularly the presence or absence of the second register.
>
More importantly, why is it a function that returns one or two registers.
If it has to mess around with pointers, why doesn't it return an array
(terminated by INVALID_REGNUM) of condition registers. In fact, the macro
could point directly at the array without the need for a function call (a
-m switch would simply change the array pointed to).
R.