On May 16, 2006, at 3:13 AM, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
I wonder now if I should keep this as SH-specific code, or does it
make
sense to write this a bit more generic - i.e. a variable number of
constant ranges, configurable size of small cold blocks, and the
range
of branches selectable - and provide this as a new piece of gcc
infrastructure.
Yes, the problem on Thumb-1 is the same in almost all respects
Given the distinct similarities here, I think it is worth
investigating
whether some common solution can be found. It's silly for both
backends
to be maintaining code that does substantially the same thing.
I think sharing of port common code is worthwhile.
