------- Comment #4 from law at redhat dot com 2008-03-25 21:54 ------- Subject: Re: Problem while compiling gcc for mn10300-elf
mstein dot lists at googlemail dot com wrote: > ------- Comment #3 from mstein dot lists at googlemail dot com 2008-03-20 > 13:55 ------- > patch: > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2008-01/msg01458.html > > I haven't worked with the mn103 in a long time, a little refreshment would go a long way. What does CLASS, MODE and IN look like? And more interesting, what are all the forms IN, CLASS & MODE might be at this point? Given the way the code is written, we must have thought one particular case required a secondary register that was a DATA_REG, presumably because an ADDRESS_REG wouldn't work. Your change would likely break that case. It's also unclear to me that this really solves the problem as opposed to just papering over the problem. Aren't DATA_OR_EXTENDED_REGS and DATA_REGS subclasses of GENERAL_REGS and thus ought to work just fine given the constraints of reload_insi's clobber operand? "=&r" I think this needs further discusssion Jeff -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31110
