This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: PR 6394
- From: "John David Anglin" <dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca>
- To: law at redhat dot com
- Cc: dje at watson dot ibm dot com, geoffk at geoffk dot org, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2002 19:23:20 -0400 (EDT)
- Subject: Re: PR 6394
> > No. I would say the class should be GENERAL_REGS.
> Agreed now that you've remined me that 9reg 66) is a pseudo for PA64 :-)
>
> What I find curious is that we have the same cost (0) for
> R1_REGS, GENERAL_REGS and FP_REGS for reg714, yet GENERAL_OR_FP_REGS has
> a cost of 7000+?!? Weird.
This is the insn
(define_insn ""
[(set (match_operand:DI 0 "reg_or_nonsymb_mem_operand"
"=r,r,r,r,r,r,Q,*q,!f,f,*TR")
(match_operand:DI 1 "move_operand"
"A,r,J,N,K,RQ,rM,rM,!fM,*RT,f"))]
"(register_operand (operands[0], DImode)
|| reg_or_0_operand (operands[1], DImode))
&& ! TARGET_SOFT_FLOAT && TARGET_64BIT"
I believe that the possible alternatives are the first and second last.
I don't understand the costs though I can sort of understand thar R1_REGS
might be low since %r1 is an input.
Dave
--
J. David Anglin dave.anglin@nrc.ca
National Research Council of Canada (613) 990-0752 (FAX: 952-6605)