Reload bug causing x86 problems
Wed May 26 19:10:00 GMT 1999
> But what about the case where they are mixed (ie, one mandatory and
> one optional). What is the result in this case? Don't we need to
> set/clear reload_optional[i] to match the resulting reload in this
If any of the reloads is mandatory, the merged reload is mandatory.
This is already implemented in the current code:
reload_optional[i] &= optional;
> > Looking at remove_address_replacements, I wonder if we can also end up
> > using a single register for an address that is used in another reload
> > as part of a group?
> I can't see a reason why we would not run into this case. Unless you're
> talking about reloads within a single insn.
Well, I'm talking about reloads for a single insn (which might spout several
More information about the Gcc-bugs