From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-help-return-64200-listarch-gcc-help=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 88853 invoked by alias); 30 Sep 2019 13:39:48 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-help-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc-help.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-help/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-help-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-help-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 88790 invoked by uid 89); 30 Sep 2019 13:39:47 -0000
Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none
X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-4.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM,GIT_PATCH_1,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 spammy=sk:stefan, D*ms, U*stefan, sk:stefan@
X-HELO: mail-wm1-f51.google.com
Received: from mail-wm1-f51.google.com (HELO mail-wm1-f51.google.com) (209.85.128.51) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Mon, 30 Sep 2019 13:39:45 +0000
Received: by mail-wm1-f51.google.com with SMTP id v17so12775843wml.4        for <gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org>; Mon, 30 Sep 2019 06:39:45 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;        d=gmail.com; s=20161025;        h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to         :cc;        bh=gCWflS92H1T1+2XW4PE3/GIDi+0LxOCIEOEVBOognqg=;        b=rfCX5PKeZIBmyEEu6cD/BfPjmfYo7pOUexhM3vrB9lOyDcYlu7+x6kRtf1m6XVbw+Z         TihIPwe6MTmP6HZqshOgP3lUfEUvwc+kOyetb6il7DPfXG6SXoXq2tIWB7/EJ1X86yNM         eCY4OiEZPvE+WzoeR4afJxdsEzJGwHDOj9OsXWRW+kJvrGBECkXQZ2Z0FUkeYEEZprgg         7Onqk+fJ1TGRZzB0ufmVTYKO25BzsH/5U1f/7NmmRPHl9LT6KPFZf59B6XtYSF3wpkJN         6yECA4hPi03qUGOvG/l/ieEdt8hXHLUx1A6FkwGcBiOR9eGpb4cAYZYAtwDQM35aQoxD         RrmA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <006001d57789$02636170$072a2450$@franke.ms>
In-Reply-To: <006001d57789$02636170$072a2450$@franke.ms>
From: Jonathan Wakely <jwakely.gcc@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2019 13:39:00 -0000
Message-ID: <CAH6eHdSwHofOLuH=7SVR5c2q1SwFrNV9h5KBxYCPe54NMe9OrA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: make static method find_reloads_address_1(...) extern accessible
To: stefan@franke.ms
Cc: gcc-help <gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
X-IsSubscribed: yes
X-SW-Source: 2019-09/txt/msg00115.txt.bz2

On Mon, 30 Sep 2019 at 13:17, <stefan@franke.ms> wrote:
>
> I've implemented LEGITIMIZE_RELOAD_ADDRESS and that implementation is
> calling find_reloads_address_1.
>
> My implementation adds double indirect addressing to the m68k target and
> since the use of an outer index register or offset depends on the use of an
> inner index register or offset, since only one index register and one offset
> is allowed per address. => The recursive reload implementation does not
> work. So the LEGITIMIZE_RELOAD_ADDRESS takes care of the whole address at
> once.
>
> How are the chances that a static method of reload is converted into an
> extern accessible method, if a patch would requires it?

If you're talking about modifying GCC then you should probably use the
gcc@ mailing list, not this one.