n you make a copy of default_secondary_reload_class and modify the
bit that sets icode to pick the appropriate pattern.
------------
* **
Re: default_secondary_reload: class vs scratch_class
You should run any patch past Joern, though.
> I'd hesitate to apply patches to default_secondary_reload.
Even if it's wrong?
> If your port triggers any of the sanity checks, convert it to the
> new infrastructure, as it provides a much better interface.
In my case, I'm just trying to get the am33 port to function, because
I have some pa
Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
You should run any patch past Joern, though.
I'd hesitate to apply patches to default_secondary_reload. If your port
triggers any of the sanity checks, convert it to the new infrastructure,
as it provides a much better interface.
Bernd
DJ Delorie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > What reason is there to have scratch_class be something else?
>
> SECONDARY_RELOAD_CLASS has the option of limiting the reload class.
> The mn10300 has a generic SImode reload_in that allows GENERAL_REGS,
> but SECONDARY_RELOAD_CLASS specifies a smaller
> What reason is there to have scratch_class be something else?
SECONDARY_RELOAD_CLASS has the option of limiting the reload class.
The mn10300 has a generic SImode reload_in that allows GENERAL_REGS,
but SECONDARY_RELOAD_CLASS specifies a smaller class based on the
registers that need reloading.
DJ Delorie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> In default_secondary_reload, we have this code:
>
> if (reg_class_subset_p (reload_class, insn_class))
> {
> gcc_assert (scratch_class == class);
> class = NO_REGS;
>
> Why doesn't it allow the scratch class to be
In default_secondary_reload, we have this code:
if (reg_class_subset_p (reload_class, insn_class))
{
gcc_assert (scratch_class == class);
class = NO_REGS;
Why doesn't it allow the scratch class to be a superset of the desired
class? I'm trying t
