RFC: Jump to const_int

[Richard Henderson]

On Sun, Jan 14, 2001 at 04:46:48PM -0500, John David Anglin wrote:
> I think that address_operand may be a slightly better choice
> for indirect_jump.  

Depends on whether you believe the non-informative comment
preceeding that pattern.  As it is, reload will simply force
the operand into a register anyway.

> Regarding situations with more than 255 arguments for a call, it
> looks like this will now cause an abort.

No it will not.  Examine the companion change to RETURN_POPS_ARGS.


r~