Bug on PA-RISC

[law@redhat.com]

In message <200206090014.BAA17565@meolyon.local>, Joern Rennecke writes:
 > law@redhat.com wrote:
 > > 
 > > In message <200206042048.g54KmJk6016494@hiauly1.hia.nrc.ca>, "John David A
 > nglin
 > > " writes:
 > >  > register copy if reload wasn't so stupid.  Currently, when it finds the
 > >  > symbolic mem value that can't be loaded directly to a FPR register, it
 > >  > creates a new insn to load the value to a different FPR register (when
 > >  > copies aren't disparaged) and then copies the value in the new FPR
 > >  > register to the old FPR register.  It doesn't recognize that the new
 > >  > insn that it has created has the same problem as the old one.  Somehow,
 > >  > we need to get reload to use the address of the MEM when it needs to
 > >  > reload a LO_SUM MEM.
 > > This would be a bug in how we handle secondary reloads somehow, and while
 > > it's possible that we have such a bug, I'd really need more information
 > > (dumps, particularly the .lreg and .greg dumps) to figure it out.
 > 
 > What you want are a reload_indf / reload_outdf expanders, so that you can
 > load your register exactly the way you like it.
Duh.  Like the PA port has only had them for 10 years or so....  Or was this
for David's benefit?

jeff