This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [RL78] Questions about code-generation
- From: Oleg Endo <oleg dot endo at t-online dot de>
- To: DJ Delorie <dj at redhat dot com>
- Cc: peper03 at yahoo dot com, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2014 22:27:53 +0100
- Subject: Re: [RL78] Questions about code-generation
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <1394465260 dot 82407 dot YahooMailNeo at web125603 dot mail dot ne1 dot yahoo dot com> <201403102137 dot s2ALbDMw016198 at greed dot delorie dot com> <5325F1E6 dot 4000905 at yahoo dot com> <1395003725 dot 32258 dot 454 dot camel at yam-132-YW-E178-FTW> <201403162122 dot s2GLMscD029120 at greed dot delorie dot com>
On Sun, 2014-03-16 at 17:22 -0400, DJ Delorie wrote:
> This is similar to what I had to do for msp430 - I made a new
> constraint that was what general_operand would have done if it allowed
> volatile MEMs, and used that for instructions where a volatile's
> volatileness wouldn't be broken.
Maybe we should add a target hook/macro to control this to avoid
duplicated code of 'general_operand' in various places?