Re: REG_OK_STRICT and EXTRA_CONSTRAINT

2006-08-26 Thread Richard Sandiford
Paolo Bonzini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> If the general replacement of REG_OK_STRICT is indeed >> reload_in_progress || reload_completed, then the substitution >> *should* of course be in principle be correct (as in: subject to >> testing. ;) > Sure. After I'm done with the base_reg_class chan

Re: REG_OK_STRICT and EXTRA_CONSTRAINT

2006-08-25 Thread Hans-Peter Nilsson
On Fri, 25 Aug 2006, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > After I'm done with the base_reg_class changes, I will try > modifying address_operand to be something along the lines of your U > constraint: Yeah, that does sound like the real bug; nothing should be using non-strict checking after reload as address_op

Re: REG_OK_STRICT and EXTRA_CONSTRAINT

2006-08-24 Thread Paolo Bonzini
If the general replacement of REG_OK_STRICT is indeed reload_in_progress || reload_completed, then the substitution *should* of course be in principle be correct (as in: subject to testing. ;) Sure. After I'm done with the base_reg_class changes, I will try modifying address_operand to be some

Re: REG_OK_STRICT and EXTRA_CONSTRAINT

2006-08-24 Thread Hans-Peter Nilsson
On Thu, 24 Aug 2006, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > Anyway, I was not meaning to *not* account for anything, but just to > replace REG_OK_STRICT with checks on reload_in_progress and > reload_completed. I understand the semantics that you wanted for 'U'. > > The bug may be that in some cases, 'U' is check

Re: REG_OK_STRICT and EXTRA_CONSTRAINT

2006-08-24 Thread Paolo Bonzini
Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote: Some ports, notably MMIX, are using different definitions of EXTRA_CONSTRAINT depending on REG_OK_STRICT. This can be a bug, because the same instruction may be considered invalid in reload.c and valid by recog.c. When I wrote that code, accounting for REG_OK_STR

Re: REG_OK_STRICT and EXTRA_CONSTRAINT

2006-08-24 Thread Hans-Peter Nilsson
On Thu, 24 Aug 2006, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > Some ports, notably MMIX, are using different definitions of > EXTRA_CONSTRAINT depending on REG_OK_STRICT. This can be a bug, because > the same instruction may be considered invalid in reload.c and valid by > recog.c. When I wrote that code, accounti

REG_OK_STRICT and EXTRA_CONSTRAINT

2006-08-24 Thread Paolo Bonzini
Some ports, notably MMIX, are using different definitions of EXTRA_CONSTRAINT depending on REG_OK_STRICT. This can be a bug, because the same instruction may be considered invalid in reload.c and valid by recog.c. The opposite would be bad because after reload everything must still adhere to