Yep thanks,
As you guys pointed the problem was the improper handling of the
strict_p parameter.
Thanks!
2014-03-18 20:13 GMT+01:00 Richard Sandiford :
> Richard Sandiford writes:
>> What DJ meant below was that you should reject all pseudo registers
>> if strict_p. I.e. REG_P (foo) should be:
Richard Sandiford writes:
> What DJ meant below was that you should reject all pseudo registers
> if strict_p. I.e. REG_P (foo) should be:
>
>REG_P (foo) && (!strict_p || REGNO_MODE_OK_FOR_BASE_P (foo, mode))
sorry:
REG_P (foo) && (!strict_p || REGNO_MODE_OK_FOR_BASE_P (REGNO (foo), mode)
David Guillen writes:
> So far I'm still facing problems regarding memory addresses even with
> the most restrictive conditions. The non-recognized instruction is:
>
> ../../../libgcc/libgcc2.c: In function '__muldi3':
> ../../../libgcc/libgcc2.c:559:1: error: insn not satisfying its restrictions
Thanks for the information.
So far I'm still facing problems regarding memory addresses even with
the most restrictive conditions. The non-recognized instruction is:
../../../libgcc/libgcc2.c: In function '__muldi3':
../../../libgcc/libgcc2.c:559:1: error: insn not satisfying its restrictions:
(
David Guillen writes:
> In any case I'm not using the restrict variable and I'm assuming
> strict is zero, this is, not checking the hard regsiters themselves.
> This is because any reg is OK for base reg. I'm pretty sure I'm
> behaving similarly to arm, cris or x86 backends.
"strict" doesn't me
On 03/14/14 05:52, David Guillen wrote:
Hello,
I'm writing a simple gcc backend and I'm experiencing a weird thing
regarding address legitimation process. Two scenarios:
If I only allow addresses to be either a register or symbols my gcc
works. To do so I add the restrictions into the
TARGET_LE
Thanks for you info Julian.
I actually read all the docs and I think I 'more or less' understand
the inner workings of gcc.
What surprises me most is that during the non-strict RTL generation I
do not see any 'strange' address pattern but during the post-reload
process the non-legitimate address c
On Fri, 14 Mar 2014 12:52:35 +0100
David Guillen wrote:
> If I allow also a 'PLUS' expression to be a valid address (adding the
> restriction that the two addends are a register and a constant) it
> happens (sometimes) that gcc comes up with an expression like this
> one:
>
> (plus:SI (plus
Hello,
I'm writing a simple gcc backend and I'm experiencing a weird thing
regarding address legitimation process. Two scenarios:
If I only allow addresses to be either a register or symbols my gcc
works. To do so I add the restrictions into the
TARGET_LEGITIMATE_ADDRESS_P macro. This makes gcc t
