On 06/18/10 09:41, Joern Rennecke wrote:
> I found in an as-yet unreleased port that I had to use an UNSPEC as a
> placeholder for the return address; it is conceivable that you want
> to express the location of return address as the sum of the stack pointer
> and an as-yet unknown constant integer
Quoting Bernd Schmidt :
On 06/18/2010 08:38 AM, Joern Rennecke wrote:
You are not only rejecting invalid pic constants, you reject everything
that's not CONST_INT. That could also include a
(const (unspec ...)) for some integer the target has to calculate after
register allocation / frame lay
On 06/18/2010 08:38 AM, Joern Rennecke wrote:
> You are not only rejecting invalid pic constants, you reject everything
> that's not CONST_INT. That could also include a
> (const (unspec ...)) for some integer the target has to calculate after
> register allocation / frame layout.
Examples? I'v
Quoting Bernd Schmidt :
On 06/15/2010 12:55 PM, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
On 06/15/2010 08:00 AM, Joern Rennecke wrote:
[constants like (plus (REG:SI SP_REG) (symbol_ref foo))]
function_invariant_p will accept them.
I guess we can change that and not lose anything.
This is what I committed a
