Sorry about the delay in the answer (4th of July weekend...).
Anyway, I agree it might not be necessary. I put it there because of
the force_reg call. Since that call might in turn call gen_reg_rtx, it
will then start off with an assertion of can_create_pseudo_p.
That is why, I thought best to pu
On 07/01/2009 02:02 PM, Jean Christophe Beyler wrote:
((reload_in_progress | reload_completed) == 0&&
MEM_P (op0)&& !REG_P (op1)))
{
op1 = force_reg (GET_MODE (op0), op1);
emit_move_insn (op0, op1);
return 1;
I wouldn't think you'd actu
I tried something similar:
(define_expand "movdi"
[(set (match_operand:DI 0 "nonimmediate_operand" "")
(match_operand:DI 1 "general_operand" ""))]
""
"
if(my_expand_move (operands[0], operands[1]))
DONE;
")
(define_insn "movdi_internal1"
[(set (match_operand:DI 0 "non
On 07/01/2009 11:28 AM, Jean Christophe Beyler wrote:
Ok, I think I understand, I've been therefore playing with this. I
initially had:
(define_insn "movdi_internal1"
[(set (match_operand:DI 0 "nonimmediate_operand" "=r,r,r,R,T,r,R,o")
(match_operand:DI 1 "general_operand" "r,iF
Ok, I think I understand, I've been therefore playing with this. I
initially had:
(define_insn "movdi_internal1"
[(set (match_operand:DI 0 "nonimmediate_operand" "=r,r,r,R,T,r,R,o")
(match_operand:DI 1 "general_operand" "r,iF,R,J,J,o,r,r"))]
For my movdi. I therefore first wanted
On 07/01/2009 08:36 AM, Jean Christophe Beyler wrote:
I tracked it down to the gcse pass. However, I thought I had turned
this off in the definition of a movdi in my machine description. But
apparently this is not sufficient, any ideas?
You probably just changed the constraint letters, but didn
Dear all,
I have this weird issue that I can't really understand:
In my architecture I do not have a store immediate into memory, I have
to go through a register.
However, the compiler is currently propagating constants into the
stores. So for example:
(insn 44 43 45 4 st3.c:21 (set (reg:DI 119
