Re: x86 PIC regressions

[Jeffrey A Law <law at cygnus dot com>]

  In message <19980904105637.A19127@dot.cygnus.com>you write:
  > > If we can stop reload from creating new references into the static
  > > store or constant pool don't most of these problems go away?
  > 
  > Either that, or teach reload that it might have to do something
  > more to fix up the problem.  Which actually gets mighty confusing
  > with, say, the PIC register in a pseudo.
Right.

  > > And isn't the only way we get these references via the handling of
  > > REG_EQUIV stuff?
  > 
  > I think so.  And if that's the case, there's no need to invent 
  > any new construct-this-constant-by-parts-on-the-stack sort of
  > solution.  If we can't reload the constant directly, we ignore
  > the REG_EQUIV and spill the register in question.
Hmmm.  Thinking more about this, isn't that what LEGITIMATE_PIC_OPERAND_P
is supposed to be doing for us -- prune away REG_EQUIV notes which cause
these kinds of problems for PIC code.


jeff