Re: REG_ALLOC_ORDER and Altivec registers

2007-03-01 Thread Dale Johannesen
On Mar 1, 2007, at 12:57 AM, Tehila Meyzels wrote: Revital Eres wrote on 01/03/2007 10:37:36: Hello, I wonder why this order (non-consecutive, decreasing) of Altivec registers was chosen when specifying the allocation order in REG_ALLOC_ORDER. (taken from rs6000.h) /* AltiVec registers

Re: REG_ALLOC_ORDER and Altivec registers

2007-03-01 Thread Tehila Meyzels
Revital Eres wrote on 01/03/2007 10:37:36: > > Hello, > > I wonder why this order (non-consecutive, decreasing) of Altivec registers > was chosen when specifying the allocation order in REG_ALLOC_ORDER. > > (taken from rs6000.h) > >/* AltiVec registers. */

REG_ALLOC_ORDER and Altivec registers

2007-03-01 Thread Revital1 Eres
Hello, I wonder why this order (non-consecutive, decreasing) of Altivec registers was chosen when specifying the allocation order in REG_ALLOC_ORDER. (taken from rs6000.h) /* AltiVec registers. */\ 77, 78,