Hi,
On Tue, 23 Feb 2010, Paulo J. Matos wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 2:26 PM, Dave Korn
> wrote:
> > On 23/02/2010 13:23, Paulo J. Matos wrote:
> >
> >> That would make sense if the rtx is a set but in this case it is not.
> >> local-alloc.c:set_preference, line 1612 in particular, is called
On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 2:26 PM, Dave Korn
wrote:
> On 23/02/2010 13:23, Paulo J. Matos wrote:
>
>> That would make sense if the rtx is a set but in this case it is not.
>> local-alloc.c:set_preference, line 1612 in particular, is called with:
>> CALL set_preference
>> dest:
>> (reg/f:QI 31)
>> sr
On 23/02/2010 13:23, Paulo J. Matos wrote:
> That would make sense if the rtx is a set but in this case it is not.
> local-alloc.c:set_preference, line 1612 in particular, is called with:
> CALL set_preference
> dest:
> (reg/f:QI 31)
> src:
> (plus:QI (reg/f:QI 6 Y)
> (reg:QI 215))
On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 2:12 PM, Joern Rennecke
wrote:
> Quoting "Paulo J. Matos" :
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> For anyone who still remembers what went on with 3.3.3, in global.c,
>> set_preference, why is there a bias to set preference for operand 0 of
>> src?
>
> I don't remember the detail of this specific
Quoting "Paulo J. Matos" :
Hi,
For anyone who still remembers what went on with 3.3.3, in global.c,
set_preference, why is there a bias to set preference for operand 0 of
src?
I don't remember the detail of this specific code, but in general operand 0
is mostly used as an output operand; if a
Hi,
For anyone who still remembers what went on with 3.3.3, in global.c,
set_preference, why is there a bias to set preference for operand 0 of
src?
It is not intuitive and I there's no comment regarding this so I guess
there is some 'assumption' gcc makes regarding the order of operands.
Two gen
