On 11/02/11 13:56, Michael Matz wrote:
The piece of code you quoted also is conditional on volatile_ok. Connect
that with what Eric said.
Thanks Michael, I guess I should sleep before asking anything else. Now
I understand what Eric said.
Hi,
On Fri, 11 Feb 2011, Paulo J. Matos wrote:
> On 11/02/11 12:03, Eric Botcazou wrote:
> > > if (! volatile_ok&& MEM_VOLATILE_P (op))
> > > return 0;
> >.
> >
> > It's more of the other way around: MEM_VOLATILE_P is a general operand
> > unless
> > explicitly requested via init
On 11/02/11 12:03, Eric Botcazou wrote:
if (! volatile_ok&& MEM_VOLATILE_P (op))
return 0;
.
It's more of the other way around: MEM_VOLATILE_P is a general operand unless
explicitly requested via init_recog_no_volatile. Some passes, like combine,
don't track the volatileness o
> I just noticed something very surprising. There's a clause in
> general_operand (recog.c):
>
> if (! volatile_ok && MEM_VOLATILE_P (op))
> return 0;
>
> Oh... so, a MEM_VOLATILE_P is _not_ a general operand? Why? This is also
> not referred to in the documentation of general operand
Hi,
I just noticed something very surprising. There's a clause in
general_operand (recog.c):
if (! volatile_ok && MEM_VOLATILE_P (op))
return 0;
Oh... so, a MEM_VOLATILE_P is _not_ a general operand? Why? This is also
not referred to in the documentation of general operand so it
