Thank you.
> I am assuming you already have basic generation of auto-incs and you
> have your definitions for legitimate{legitimize}_address all set up
> correctly.
Well, I think they are. But the problem could be this. Here are cuts
from the machine description dealing with auto-inc-dec:
#defin
ilto:gcc-ow...@gcc.gnu.org] On
> Behalf Of Ramana Radhakrishnan
> Sent: 07 August 2009 14:11
> To: Florent Defay
> Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: Re: PRE_DEC, POST_INC
>
> On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 1:33 PM, Florent
> Defay wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I am working on
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 1:33 PM, Florent Defay wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am working on a new port.
>
> The target machine supports post-increment and pre-decrement
> addressing modes. These modes are twice faster than indexed mode.
> It is important for us that GCC consider them well.
GCC does support ge
Hi,
I am working on a new port.
The target machine supports post-increment and pre-decrement
addressing modes. These modes are twice faster than indexed mode.
It is important for us that GCC consider them well.
I wrote emails to gcc-help and I was told that GCC was not so good at
pre/post-dec/in
Rask Ingemann Lambertsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>The comment for note_stores() (in rtlanal.c) says:
>
> /* Call FUN on each register or MEM that is stored into or clobbered by X.
>(X would be the pattern of an insn).
>
>But this doesn't happen when a register is modified by e.g.
The comment for note_stores() (in rtlanal.c) says:
/* Call FUN on each register or MEM that is stored into or clobbered by X.
(X would be the pattern of an insn).
But this doesn't happen when a register is modified by e.g. a PRE_DEC
expression. Is this an oversight or intentional? If int
