On Sun, Jun 04, 2006 at 12:24:53PM +0100, Paul Brook wrote:
> For the record these hacks are unlikely to ever be acceptable in mainline
> gcc.
> They're relatively invasive changes who's only purpose is to support
> fundamentally broken hardware.
We don't yet know if they'll be invasive. There's a good chance that they
won't be more than a few new insn patterns, a secondary output reload
to provide a scratch register and a pair of new options.
There are other targets with targets specific options to work around this or
that bug, quirk, defect or errata. In this case, why would two options
-mno-byte-writes and -mbyte-writes, with the latter being the default, be
unlikely to be acceptable? In particular, the MT port has these two options:
-mbacc
Use byte loads and stores when generating code.
-mno-bacc
Do not use byte loads and stores when generating code.
--
Rask Ingemann Lambertsen
