>From the discussion on gcc-patches - I wonder how far should the port go here to paper over basic brokenness in gcc to handle multi-hard-register pointers.
On 25 October 2013 13:35, Joern Rennecke <joern.renne...@embecosm.com> wrote: > Well, it's not really a lie if you map hardware registers 22 and 23 to > a single register for the purposes of gcc internals. Although it > does make some other things more awkward, e.g. when you > copy fp, and this gets split so you have an insn that copies the > highpart of fp to another register. As an aside, I wonder how much it'd take to make gcc properly handle multi-register stack/frame/arg pointers. Do we also have issues with this and static frame pointers? Should we have REG_INC notes for each hard register affected, or should HARD_REGNO_NREGS of the reg inside been taken into account? Maybe with some info stashed in the mode of the note to speed things up?
