Steven Bosscher wrote: > On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 8:54 PM, Georg-Johann Lay <a...@gjlay.de> wrote: >> Dropping the first patch which does not work because at expand-time there >> must not be pre-/post-modify addressing :-( > > Have you tried to fix that, instead? Or at least ask around a bit to > see what people would think about that idea? The reasons why things > are the way they are, may not be applicable anymore.
No, I didn't try to fix it. I am not experienced enough in that field. Moreover, at least as far as avr is concerned, using post-inc would just be a hack, too. > For example, perhaps the only reason for not having pre-/post-modify > addressing modes earlier is that the old "flow" dataflow frame work > didn't handle them. And it doesn't seem to be so black-and-white: The > very pass you ran into problems with first, cprop, does handle > pre-/post-modify addresses in local cprop. Some other passes simply > take the conservative path and drop pre-/post-modify (like CSE, which The problems were not only in cprop but also in cselib. > doesn't record values from them). It may be a relatively small job to > make everything accept them, and you may be something that's also > helpful for other targets. > > Ciao! > Steven
