Re: Indirect memory addresses vs. lra

[Paul Koning]

> On Aug 8, 2019, at 1:21 PM, Segher Boessenkool <seg...@kernel.crashing.org> 
> wrote:
> 
> On Thu, Aug 08, 2019 at 12:43:52PM -0400, Paul Koning wrote:
>>> On Aug 8, 2019, at 12:25 PM, Vladimir Makarov <vmaka...@redhat.com> wrote:
>>> The old reload (reload[1].c) supports such addressing.  As modern 
>>> mainstream architectures have no this kind of addressing, it was not 
>>> implemented in LRA.
>> 
>> Is LRA only intended for "modern mainstream architectures"?
> 
> I sure hope not!  But it has only been *used* and *tested* much on such,
> so far. 

That's not entirely accurate.  At the prodding of people pushing for the 
removal of CC0 and reload, I've added LRA support to pdp11 in the V9 cycle.  
And it works pretty well, in the sense of passing the compile tests.  But I 
haven't yet examined the code quality vs. the old one in any detail.

        paul