change this now.
I expect you are right. After experimenting, the cases where this might
buy you any benefit are just too uncommon, and the 'benefit' is just too
small.
The one place where any of this would (sort of) be useful is checking
for the "cc" clobber conflicting with
On 2/1/2016 6:58 AM, Ulrich Weigand wrote:
I think on many targets a clobber "cc" works because the backend
actually defines a register named "cc" to correspond to the flags.
Therefore the normal handling of clobbering named hard registers
catches this case as well.
This doesn't work on i386 bec
On 02/02/2016 01:58 AM, Ulrich Weigand wrote:
I think on many targets a clobber "cc" works because the backend
actually defines a register named "cc" to correspond to the flags.
Therefore the normal handling of clobbering named hard registers
catches this case as well.
Yes. C.f. Sparc ADDITION
David Wohlferd wrote:
> On 1/26/2016 4:31 PM, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
> > On 01/27/2016 12:12 AM, David Wohlferd wrote:
> >> I started by just commenting out the code in ix86_md_asm_adjust that
> >> unconditionally clobbered the flags. I figured this would allow the
> >> 'normal' "cc" handling to occ
On 1/26/2016 4:31 PM, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
On 01/27/2016 12:12 AM, David Wohlferd wrote:
I started by just commenting out the code in ix86_md_asm_adjust that
unconditionally clobbered the flags. I figured this would allow the
'normal' "cc" handling to occur. But apparently there is no 'normal'
On 01/27/2016 12:12 AM, David Wohlferd wrote:
I started by just commenting out the code in ix86_md_asm_adjust that
unconditionally clobbered the flags. I figured this would allow the
'normal' "cc" handling to occur. But apparently there is no 'normal'
"cc" handling.
I have a dim memory that t
It is well known that on i386, the "cc" clobber is always set for
extended asm, whether it is specified or not. I was wondering how much
difference it might make if the generated code actually followed what
the user specified (expectation: not much). But implementing this
t
