On Fri, Mar 19, 2021 at 03:42:42PM +0000, Richard Sandiford via Gcc-patches
wrote:
> Vladimir Makarov via Gcc-patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org> writes:
> > The following patch solves P1 PR99581
> >
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99581
> >
> > The patch was successfully tested and bootstrapped on x86-64, ppc64le,
> > aarch64.
> >
> > Is it ok for the trunk?
>
> As I mentioned in bugzilla though, the motivation behind this seems
> to be that "o" shouldn't need to check for a valid memory address,
> even though "m" and "V" do:
I'm just watching this from a distance, but I understood "o" is just one of
the many memory constraints that want such a behavior and that aarch64
UtQ is the only current known exception from that. Isn't that the case?
So, if we fix "o", won't we run into it in a few days or weeks with many of
the other 160+ memory constraints?
Jakub
