On Sun, 2014-03-16 at 17:22 -0400, DJ Delorie wrote: > This is similar to what I had to do for msp430 - I made a new > constraint that was what general_operand would have done if it allowed > volatile MEMs, and used that for instructions where a volatile's > volatileness wouldn't be broken.
Maybe we should add a target hook/macro to control this to avoid duplicated code of 'general_operand' in various places? Cheers, Oleg
