Re: [RFC][AArch64] Define BASE_REG_CLASS to be GENERAL_REGS

2014-05-21 Thread Richard Earnshaw
On 21/05/14 16:21, Marcus Shawcroft wrote: > On 15 May 2014 06:54, Kugan wrote: >> Hi All, >> >> In AArch64 back-end, BASE_REG_CLASS is defined to be POINTER_REGS. >> Shouldn’t this be GENERAL_REGS? > > Hi Kugan, > > Are you aware of any problem caused by BASE_REG_CLASS being POINTER_REGS? > >

Re: [RFC][AArch64] Define BASE_REG_CLASS to be GENERAL_REGS

2014-05-21 Thread Marcus Shawcroft
On 15 May 2014 06:54, Kugan wrote: > Hi All, > > In AArch64 back-end, BASE_REG_CLASS is defined to be POINTER_REGS. > Shouldn’t this be GENERAL_REGS? Hi Kugan, Are you aware of any problem caused by BASE_REG_CLASS being POINTER_REGS? GENERAL_REGS and POINTER_REGS differ only in that the latter

[RFC][AArch64] Define BASE_REG_CLASS to be GENERAL_REGS

2014-05-14 Thread Kugan
Hi All, In AArch64 back-end, BASE_REG_CLASS is defined to be POINTER_REGS. Shouldn’t this be GENERAL_REGS? Attached RFC patch makes it GENERAL_REGS. Regression tested for aarch64-none-linux-gnu on qemu-aarch64 with now new regression. Is this OK ? Thanks, Kugan gcc/ 2014-05-15 Kugan Vivekanand