On Wed, Dec 21, 2005 at 03:07:21PM -0500, DJ Delorie wrote:
>
> > It was because I had decided to expose the registers as %al, %ah,
> > ... %bl, %bh, ... instead of the customary %[e]ax and friends.
>
> I originally did this for the m32c port (which has hi/low pairs like
> the i386) but discover
On Wed, Dec 21, 2005 at 08:23:17PM +0200, Bernd Jendrissek wrote:
> I've been playing with my 16-bit ix86 port again,
I started coding one from scratch in about October or so. It has been
interesting.
[cut %bx as %bl and %bh in BASE_REGS]
> The simple solution was just to add %bh to BASE_REGS in
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, Jan 03, 2006 at 05:25:55PM +, Joern RENNECKE wrote:
> In http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2005-12/msg00642.html, Bernd Jendrissek
> wrote:
> > Which leads me to the subject. Would it be a win to have a macro
> > HARD_REGNO_MODE_OK_FOR_CLASS (REGN
In http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2005-12/msg00642.html, Bernd Jendrissek wrote:
> Which leads me to the subject. Would it be a win to have a macro
> HARD_REGNO_MODE_OK_FOR_CLASS (REGNO, MODE, CLASS) which would be the
> authoritative test for this loop in find_reg()? On my port, and I
> imagine on m
> It was because I had decided to expose the registers as %al, %ah,
> ... %bl, %bh, ... instead of the customary %[e]ax and friends.
I originally did this for the m32c port (which has hi/low pairs like
the i386) but discovered that reload always allocates registers in
UNITS_PER_WORD chunks, and
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I think so, at least.
The problem I seem to be having is related to this bit of code in
reload1.c:find_reg():
for (j = 1; j < this_nregs; j++)
{
this_cost += spill_add_cost[regno + j];
if ((TEST_HARD_
