From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 12679 invoked by alias); 26 Feb 2008 18:59:15 -0000 Received: (qmail 12669 invoked by uid 22791); 26 Feb 2008 18:59:15 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from e5.ny.us.ibm.com (HELO e5.ny.us.ibm.com) (32.97.182.145) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Tue, 26 Feb 2008 18:58:49 +0000 Received: from d01relay02.pok.ibm.com (d01relay02.pok.ibm.com [9.56.227.234]) by e5.ny.us.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m1QIwlEL027145 for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2008 13:58:47 -0500 Received: from d01av02.pok.ibm.com (d01av02.pok.ibm.com [9.56.224.216]) by d01relay02.pok.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v8.7) with ESMTP id m1QIwlvg243114 for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2008 13:58:47 -0500 Received: from d01av02.pok.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d01av02.pok.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.13.3) with ESMTP id m1QIwkJr016117 for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2008 13:58:46 -0500 Received: from [9.10.86.201] (otta.rchland.ibm.com [9.10.86.201]) by d01av02.pok.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m1QIwkqq016101; Tue, 26 Feb 2008 13:58:46 -0500 Subject: Re: [PATCH] PR35371 GCSE loses track of REG_POINTER attribute From: Peter Bergner To: Richard Sandiford Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org In-Reply-To: <87skzfzkvh.fsf@firetop.home> References: <20080225222624.GA26857@vervain.rchland.ibm.com> <87skzfzkvh.fsf@firetop.home> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2008 19:04:00 -0000 Message-Id: <1204052325.7014.2.camel@otta> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.12.1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2008-02/txt/msg01308.txt.bz2 On Tue, 2008-02-26 at 17:29 +0000, Richard Sandiford wrote: > Minor suggestion, but maybe this could go in emit-rtl.c, under a more > generic name? Given the performance impact of losing pointer info, > it would be nice to have a defined API for creating a register that's > like another. Having tracked a similar problem in another file, I was thinking along the same lines. I'm bad at names though. Care to suggest a name for the new function? Peter