RFA: Fix PR middle-end/29847

Joern RENNECKE joern.rennecke@st.com
Fri Nov 17 15:05:00 GMT 2006


Richard Sandiford wrote:

>FWIW, I've looked at the patch for 29845 too, but could you explain
>in more detail why you think this is the right fix?  I would have
>thought that matching constraints should always provide the least
>significant end of the wider operand, and if gcc doesn't know which
>end that is in a particular situation, it should be taught in a more
>direct way.  Introducing a target macro at the matching level seems
>a bit hackish.
>  
>
I don't know why the current behaviour is why it is, but someone has gone to
extra pains to make sure that the big endian adjustment is not made 
unless the
mode is a scalar integer mode.  Maybe there is a target out there that has
big endian or bi-endian integer registers, but little-endian floating 
point registers.

As it happens, the SH has bi-endian integer registers and big endian 
floating point
registers, so if I wanted to have a matching operand for hardware 
floating point
registers, I could do this with the hook too, by always doing big endian 
adjustments
for floating point register numbers.

Although the SH port would be more efficient if the floating point 
registers were
internally numbered in gcc such that their endianness appears to match the
memory endianness.



More information about the Gcc-patches mailing list