This is the mail archive of the gcc@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: define_memory_constraint and REG_OK_STRICT

From: Richard Henderson <rth at redhat dot com>
To: Mohamed Shafi <shafitvm at gmail dot com>
Cc: GCC <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
Date: Fri, 02 Oct 2009 07:45:14 -0700
Subject: Re: define_memory_constraint and REG_OK_STRICT
References: <ba0bd44d0909290732h2f5ca520q62f27bac2fe33f6c@mail.gmail.com> <4AC26501.6000001@redhat.com> <ba0bd44d0909292146q33174f6cv780894ba3795e203@mail.gmail.com> <4AC36E13.3090402@redhat.com> <ba0bd44d0910020503x79109e17h2b75b2252f750fb4@mail.gmail.com>

On 10/02/2009 05:03 AM, Mohamed Shafi wrote:

   That particular case works, and yes arm does it that way but there
are other targets that uses (reload_completed || reload_in_progress)
like s390.  So thats why i had to ask if my definition of strict is
proper or not. I am not sure which one to use?

I'm afraid I don't know for certain either.

r~

References:
- Re: define_memory_constraint and REG_OK_STRICT
  - From: Mohamed Shafi

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]