On 06/18/2010 08:38 AM, Joern Rennecke wrote: > You are not only rejecting invalid pic constants, you reject everything > that's not CONST_INT. That could also include a > (const (unspec ...)) for some integer the target has to calculate after > register allocation / frame layout.
Examples? I've never seen code that tries to offset the frame pointer by anything but a const_int. > I've stumbled over this piece of code in reload1.c:elimination_effects: > > 30134 crux else if (reg_renumber[regno] < 0 && > reg_equiv_constant > 30134 crux && reg_equiv_constant[regno] > 47226 rth && ! function_invariant_p > (reg_equiv_constant[regno])) > 30134 crux elimination_effects (reg_equiv_constant[regno], > mem_mode); > 30134 crux return; > > When will this condition ever trigger? If this is not dead code, then > at least it is lacking a comment. I can't seem to find anything in the mailing list archives corresponding to revision 47226. The testcase is gcc.dg/20011119-1.c. I agree the code looks odd. Bernd
