addressof and alpha_expand_block_move

[Richard Henderson]

On Fri, Jan 23, 1998 at 10:28:43PM -0700, Jeffrey A Law wrote:
> ie, what happens if the expansion of ADDRESSOF creates an invalid address --
> like a base + const_int, where the const_int won't fit into the range allowed
> on the target (which can be quite small in some cases).

This is already handled by the addressof code.  Without my patch
it almost alway only tries to replace with a reg, and even then 
it goes through the whole validate_change thing.

What wasn't happening in the alpha case is the reg set and memory
reference being combined back into a single instruction.


r~