https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97071
--- Comment #9 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> --- (In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #8) > (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #7) > > Another possibility would be to do this on GIMPLE, creating parts of the > > constant pool early with CONST_DECLs and loads from them for constants that > > are never legitimate (immediate) in instructions. > > How can Gimple know this though? Gimple does not know what instructions will > be generated. > > The constant pools are a very machine-specific concept, poorly suited to > Gimple. Sure. > What abstraction does Gimple have for immediates currently? There's no "abstraction" for immediates in GIMPLE, likewise for symbolic addresses.
