This is the mail archive of the
java@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the Java project.
Re: RFC: peephole vs RTX_FRAME_RELATED_P
- From: Hans-Peter Nilsson <hp at bitrange dot com>
- To: Richard Henderson <rth at redhat dot com>
- Cc: Ian Lance Taylor <ian at airs dot com>, Andrew Haley <aph at redhat dot com>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, java at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Mon, 2 Jan 2006 22:35:40 -0500 (EST)
- Subject: Re: RFC: peephole vs RTX_FRAME_RELATED_P
- References: <17318.64145.41810.488474@zapata.pink> <m38xuglvrk.fsf@gossamer.airs.com> <17319.3754.844531.876599@zapata.pink> <m34q54lot9.fsf@gossamer.airs.com> <20051220073124.GA3576@redhat.com>
On Mon, 19 Dec 2005, Richard Henderson wrote:
> I think that this is all complicated enough that we should
> simply deny peepholing insns with RTX_FRAME_RELATED_P set.
I was just bitten by the same behavior for define_split.
Should the same go for define_splits and maybe also as a guard
test for combine? Maybe a utility function to use by all insn
transformations?
brgds, H-P