Yes thanks it worked out exactly like you said. I first made the
mistake to constrain the match_scratch 'rX' and then wondering why I
am still seeing a scratch after reload. I realized you were talking
about a real alternative 'r,X'.
Regards,
Hendrik Greving
On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 12:26 AM, Ric
Hendrik Greving writes:
> One follow-up question here. Is it of any disadvantage to always
> generate a clobber (scratch) during expansion? Meaning that in the
> case we don't need one (we won't split, which I am checking with
> memory_operand(myoutput_operand), that register won't get allocated
>
One follow-up question here. Is it of any disadvantage to always
generate a clobber (scratch) during expansion? Meaning that in the
case we don't need one (we won't split, which I am checking with
memory_operand(myoutput_operand), that register won't get allocated
and adds to register pressure, doe
Hendrik Greving writes:
> For a special mechanism we are generating jump_insn with a 'set' side
> effect in our backend. RTL looks e.g. like this:
>
> (jump_insn 25 24 26 (nil) (parallel [
> (set (pc)
> (if_then_else (ne (unspec_volatile [
>
Richard, this sounds very good. Let me try this. So far, what I meant
by 'reloading myself' was that when generating the RTL above, I
actually emit move instructions to/from memory if the arguments are
memory, and generate RTL above only with hard registers. I did not
mention that RTL expansion is
Hi,
For a special mechanism we are generating jump_insn with a 'set' side
effect in our backend. RTL looks e.g. like this:
(jump_insn 25 24 26 (nil) (parallel [
(set (pc)
(if_then_else (ne (unspec_volatile [
(const_string (" %0,[%1] =%2"
