> Seeing the patched code in its entirety like this, I notice that we
> would use HARD_REGNO_NREGS for a regno that's not ok for the mode.
> That can be avoided if we put a break into the if. And then the
> !bad term in the loop condition becomes redundant. Although the
> HARD_REGNO_NREGS defini
> > Some notes: I lie to gcc and tell it that $fp (reg 22) is two bytes
> > when it's really one.
>
> Well, it's not really a lie if you map hardware registers 22 and 23 to
> a single register for the purposes of gcc internals.
Yeah, I'm basically making those two registers into a permanent bigg
On 25 October 2013 05:15, DJ Delorie wrote:
>
> Yup, my registers are smaller than Pmode.
>
> This is what I ended up with...
>
> Some notes: I lie to gcc and tell it that $fp (reg 22) is two bytes
> when it's really one.
Well, it's not really a lie if you map hardware registers 22 and 23 to
a si
Yup, my registers are smaller than Pmode.
This is what I ended up with...
Some notes: I lie to gcc and tell it that $fp (reg 22) is two bytes
when it's really one. None of the register classes have reg 23 (used
for the upper half of $fp) in them. Reg 23 is also listed as being
two bytes, to ke
